Do you roleplay low ability scores?

[RoboEmperor]

Low Dex
You trip a lot, and stub your toe everywhere.
Low Con
You get sick a lot. Slightly undercooked food? Sick. Some sort of disgusting stench? (the hairy sweaty fighter next to you), gotta actively try to stay away. You just can't endure it.
Low Int
You can't make any plans, at all, other than attack this. Anything strategic, you can't contribute
Low Wis
You get fooled by every single scam in the book.
Low Cha
You're submissive. If someone glares at you to do something, you do it.

Do you roleplay these stuff, or just ignore them in the majority of your games? I had a small argument in my group about this. I mean, if you dump a stat, then you gotta pay the consequences right? Won't make sense if an 8cha wizard was leading the party or a 8 int fighter contributing to battle plans. 8wis 8cha wizard should be the party's b*tch, that is, until he hatches a revenge plan, in which case the entire party is screwed XD.

[Dire Moose]

I did make a hulking barbarian with the mental capacity of a brick once. It was a one-off game, and the guy (named "Trog the Horrendous") had penalties in all his mental stats.

I actually kind of liked playing him as a "HERP DERP TROG SMASH STUPID THING!" type. That being said, I generally leave my dump stats at 10 and try to make well-rounded characters.

[Flickerdart]

An 8 CHA 8 WIS character could totally lead the party; remember that these aren't random bozos but trusted companions that have been through thick and thin with this guy and know what he's worth. Those in the party with higher CHA should naturally pipe up in negotiations, and high WIS types will be on the lookout for any subterfuge, but as long as the party leader understands proper delegation, there's no problem here.

[Curmudgeon]

I did this once for a Feral Half-Minotaur Half-Orc character with INT 3 (8 -2 -2 -2, boosted because of the minimum requirement for PCs). I used a stack of 50 index cards with his entire vocabulary. When a word he knew was used I'd pull that to the top of the stack. Words he didn't know were skipped most of the time. When one of his companions insisted on teaching him a new word, I picked whatever card was on the bottom of the stack and replaced it with the new word. Hijinks ensued a couple of times because of this, for example when the word "DON'T" got replaced. :smallbiggrin:

[Absol197]

Heck yes, we do!

A couple of our most memorable characters were a half-brass dragon character with a Wisdom of 8. Brass dragons are the talkative ones, and the character inherited this trait. She would talk constantly, and would often talk about things that she shouldn't, and would often talk when it wasn't the most opportune time.

The other was one of our favorites: a druid with an Int of 7 in a Sea-faring campaign. The player role-played it off as the result of his getting struck by lightning several years ago. The character wasn't actually stupid, per se, but he was very forgetful and didn't make logical connections very quickly. This led to hilarity, such as our favorite scene - my character had left her village under suspicious circumstances with her mother dead. The party had returned to the island and were talking to the village elder, with my character hanging in the back. I asked the druid to ask the elder after my father, to make sure he was okay. The druid rolled an Int check to see if he could make the connection as to why I might want to have him ask secretly. Nat 1.

"Uh, I don't know why Seela wants me to ask you this, but how is [character's dad] doing?"

[Chronos]

My favorite character I've played simply would not have worked without a poor Wis. He was a warlock whose powers always came out as being ugly, dark, and fiendish, and he just couldn't understand why, since he was convinced he got his abilities through fey ancestry, and so obviously they should all be bright, colorful, and pretty. It's a shame that campaign fell apart-- I was looking forward to seeing how long he could maintain the self-delusion.

[atemu1234]

My favorite character I've played simply would not have worked without a poor Wis. He was a warlock whose powers always came out as being ugly, dark, and fiendish, and he just couldn't understand why, since he was convinced he got his abilities through fey ancestry, and so obviously they should all be bright, colorful, and pretty. It's a shame that campaign fell apart-- I was looking forward to seeing how long he could maintain the self-delusion.

"Dark, evil and Abyssal whispering? Must be those damn sprites again."

[Khay]

I had a fun campaign like this once! It wasn't actually D&D, but the equivalent would be a character with high-ish INT but abysmal CHA and WIS. It was a pretty ridiculous campaign all around and we were all just having fun with it, which led to some pretty silly moments. Such as my character figuring out that an assignment was actually a trap, but being unable to explain it to anyone - the explanation would always come out with way too much detail, or as an impenetrable pile of nested sentences.

[The Insanity]

Yes. nbzdhzhzjszj

[AnonymousPepper]

Far and away my favorite character ever is played by a fantastic RPer in my Friday night 3.PF game that I run. I know I've mentioned him multiple times before, but it's actually relevant here - he's Avenal, an INT7 WIS7 LG Paladin of Asmodeus hailing from Cheliax. He's very charismatic and functions as the party beatstick and face (provided somebody else is giving him the words to say), but holy hell is he gullible.

For example, to distract him so that the artificer could tell the rest of the group some plot critical information without the paladin hearing and blabbing it to everyone he knows, he simply pulled out a coin, chucked it when the pally wasn't looking, and asked him nicely to go grab it for him. True to form he rolled and failed his Perception (to see if he saw the artificer throw it) and Sense Motive (to see if he saw through the deception) rather easily.

Also relevant is that he's a LG Paladin of Asmodeus entirely because he is truly so dumb that he believes the Big A is actually LG. Guy even has a justification for it - some (very selective) readings of ancient Asmodean texts, which he has actually preached on to multiple NPCs and PCs alike when questioned. He also routinely rolls INT and WIS checks on very basic things that nobody else would even bat an eye on simply because doing or not doing them would be beyond insane and potentially get the party in very serious trouble. He usually succeeds, but not always, and thus he has entirely in-character done some very, very silly things.

And I do my best to humor it (Asmodeus tolerates it wholly because he finds it hilarious; he once sent a Fiendish Unicorn in response to a Lesser Planar Ally request for a unicorn without telling said unicorn that this was a paladin, not an anti-paladin), because frankly, it is awesome to see. Honestly, I've bent over backwards to save his character once or twice, because I just like him too much to kill him.

[Flickerdart]

And I do my best to humor it (Asmodeus tolerates it wholly because he finds it hilarious;
Wouldn't supporting a paladin mean that Asmodeus is increasing the amount of Good in the world, which is kind of unacceptable for the #1 chief devil?

[Vhaidara]

Gnome Bard with an 8 Wisdom: Tended to blurt out things the party didn't want the person we were talking to to know.

The best part: He had the best Bluff check in the group. However, he didn't see the point in lying most of the time. So the group figured out they had to explicitly tell him what needed to be kept secret. Then he was the master of deception, because he actually bothered to lie.

[Flickerdart]

Gnome Bard with an 8 Wisdom: Tended to blurt out things the party didn't want the person we were talking to to know.

The best part: He had the best Bluff check in the group. However, he didn't see the point in lying most of the time. So the group figured out they had to explicitly tell him what needed to be kept secret. Then he was the master of deception, because he actually bothered to lie.
Sounds like a great setup for keeping the wrong things secret. What the party is planning to do to the local duke? Sure, I'd love to share. What the party had for breakfast this morning? Tell no one.

[BWR]

In a word: always.
Sometimes I just note that X has trouble lifting something (poor Str) or often short of breath and always has a cold (poor Con) or a bit of a wallflower (low Cha), etc.
IMO, it isn't until an ability score reaches 7 or lower that it's really an issue that people notice in game. 8-9 is common. It's the sort of thing that you might notice when you first meet someone but quickly forget after getting to know them a bit. It's usually something that isn't important in daily life.
7 and lower it's noticable and constant. 8 Int is someone who's a bit slow but nothing so bad you think there is real retardation. 8 Charisma is someone who is a bit quiet and shy or a bit annoying. 7 Int you notice that they have trouble with even basic things like understanding simple arithmetic beyond addition, misremembering things constantly. 7 Charisma is someone withdrawn and uncomfortable in social situations or so annoying that people actively avoid them.

[Vhaidara]

Sounds like a great setup for keeping the wrong things secret. What the party is planning to do to the local duke? Sure, I'd love to share. What the party had for breakfast this morning? Tell no one.

Maybe for another character, but this one's schtick was that he didn't keep anything secret unless explicitly told to. It led to our dwarven fighter learning to cast Sleep through his axe. Worked until I had too many hit points.

[Kazyan]

No, I just complain to the DM that low scores are unplayable and screw over non-casters until I have all positive modifiers.

On phone, so just imagine the above is blue.

In all seriousness, I would like to, but I've yet to be able to seriously play a character with anything below an 8 somewhere, either due to how Point Buy works or because of decent-or-better rolls. I'd like to play someone who sucks at a score, now that I think about it, though. I once joined a PbP and had to roll for stats, and while the DM was in disbelief and gave sympathy, I was downright excited to see a 3 among otherwise-playable rolls.

My policy as a DM is that people are normal, if disappointing, all the way down to an ability score of 4. You need a 3 to have an actual disability. For a population of 3d6 commoner, this means that about 1 in 10 of them have a disability, which sounds about right to me.

[Ssalarn]

Low Dex
You trip a lot, and stub your toe everywhere.
Low Con
You get sick a lot. Slightly undercooked food? Sick. Some sort of disgusting stench? (the hairy sweaty fighter next to you), gotta actively try to stay away. You just can't endure it.
Low Int
You can't make any plans, at all, other than attack this. Anything strategic, you can't contribute
Low Wis
You get fooled by every single scam in the book.
Low Cha
You're submissive. If someone glares at you to do something, you do it.

Do you roleplay these stuff, or just ignore them in the majority of your games? I had a small argument in my group about this. I mean, if you dump a stat, then you gotta pay the consequences right? Won't make sense if an 8cha wizard was leading the party or a 8 int fighter contributing to battle plans. 8wis 8cha wizard should be the party's b*tch, that is, until he hatches a revenge plan, in which case the entire party is screwed XD.

So, I don't necessarily agree with your summation of the effects of a low Charisma, but yeah, dumped scores at my table are enforced. I let players know that there is an expectation for them to abide by choices they make during character creation; if you have an INT of 7 I don't care how clever you are in the real world, your character isn't going to be the guy who solves the 8 page poetic anagram based on an obscure elven saga. Similarly, no matter how well you personally can string together a series of words, if you tell me your 5 CHA character gives a Gettysburg level speech, I'm going to be telling you what it sounds like outside of his head, and your version and my version are probably going to have some marked differences.

There needs to be a balance between roleplay and roll-play in the group, and in the characters. If your group includes a shrinking violet who wants to play a bard because it represents things she would like to be but isn't, and another player who's charismatic in real life but rolled up a CHA-dumped Barbarian, I'm doing a disservice if I allow the barbarian's player to use his real-life personality to represent his character as something it shouldn't be in game. If you don't want to play a fumble-tongued thug who always uses the wrong words and gives people the wrong impression, don't dump CHA. If you want your Fighter to also be a brilliant tactician, don't dump INT.

[starwoof]

Roleplaying bad ability scores is fun and I usually try to do it, but it's not always easy. My elven wizard has lowish cha so I play him like Vaarsuvius and actually try to quote V when I can. He's pointlessly mean to NPCs because he's been geased to join the main quest and is really unhappy to be there. That's just an 8 cha though, nothing special. I was cursed for three sessions with a -6 to my con (giving me a 6 con) so I coughed a lot in character and always had my inhaler handy.

My Hackmaster character has 4 wisdom, 3 charisma, and 1 looks. I try to play him as a rock with combat skills but I like socializing with NPCs too much. I try to keep my conversations with NPCs to one word responses and just kind of avoid them, but it's not easy for me.

Usually our ability scores aren't too bad though. If we ever used point buy instead of stat blocks you can bet I would have a lot more crappy ability scores to roleplay.:smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

Oh, absolutely. Playing the good with the bad is part of the fun.:smallsmile:

[jedipotter]

Do you roleplay these stuff, or just ignore them in the majority of your games? I had a small argument in my group about this. I mean, if you dump a stat, then you gotta pay the consequences right? Won't make sense if an 8cha wizard was leading the party or a 8 int fighter contributing to battle plans. 8wis 8cha wizard should be the party's b*tch, that is, until he hatches a revenge plan, in which case the entire party is screwed XD.

This really is a game play question. After all, a lot of players simply ignore their character stats, even more so the mental ones, and ''play themselves''. Other games are overpowered so every character has 18+ in every stat. And a whole lot of players will never, ever play anything even slightly negative as they must be super at all times: So even if the character had a low ability score, the player will still play the character as ''average'' at least.


In my games players roll for ability scores, and I don't allow point buys. And I have lots of house rules to filter out the non-role players. So this leaves my game with players that want to and will play low ability scores. And this leads to much more fun then just being ''super characters'' all the time.

And the great and funny stories of ''low stat'' characters are endless....

[NichG]

Do you roleplay these stuff, or just ignore them in the majority of your games? I had a small argument in my group about this. I mean, if you dump a stat, then you gotta pay the consequences right? Won't make sense if an 8cha wizard was leading the party or a 8 int fighter contributing to battle plans. 8wis 8cha wizard should be the party's b*tch, that is, until he hatches a revenge plan, in which case the entire party is screwed XD.

Generally in D&D I ignore these for a variety of reasons. In other games it might make more sense to play it up, but in D&D:

- Low stats just don't get very low. An 8 in a stat is a -1 on a task, which is negligible at even moderate levels. An 8 Cha bard has a higher ceiling on their Diplomacy skill than an 18 Cha sorceror by the time they hit Lv2 due to cross-class skill caps and early access to synergy bonuses (they can get +6 from synergies once they hit Lv2 in skills which the sorceror can't get 5 ranks in until Lv10). That's an extreme example, but basically the system doesn't support giving low stats all that much importance relative to them just being 'average'. Stats get much higher than average more than they get much lower than average.

- The stats are only precisely defined mechanically. What is charisma exactly, or wisdom? Why does wisdom make you stronger-willed and have better eyesight at the same time? Is intelligence cunning, or just memorization? Similarly you have issues with 'how wise is 8 Wis?' or 'how smart is 8 Int?'. You won't get people agreeing on it, so its best to avoid telling other people that 'you aren't wise enough to do that!' or whatever.

I think that if a player chooses to play up a low stat because that's how they envision the character then that's fine, but it just isn't a good idea to try to tell players that they must do so.

[Troacctid]

I find them to be self-enforcing to some degree. Characters with low Charisma have low Diplomacy checks, so they tend to let other people do the talking. Characters with low Strength can't swing a sword very well, so they stay out of melee combat. Characters with low Intelligence rarely invest much in Knowledge skills, so they end up not having a lot of book learning. And so on. The game mechanics are already set up to naturally mirror the character's personality.

[Flickerdart]

So, I don't necessarily agree with your summation of the effects of a low Charisma, but yeah, dumped scores at my table are enforced. I let players know that there is an expectation for them to abide by choices they make during character creation; if you have an INT of 7 I don't care how clever you are in the real world, your character isn't going to be the guy who solves the 8 page poetic anagram based on an obscure elven saga. Similarly, no matter how well you personally can string together a series of words, if you tell me your 5 CHA character gives a Gettysburg level speech, I'm going to be telling you what it sounds like outside of his head, and your version and my version are probably going to have some marked differences.
One suggestion I've seen to handle naturally clever and/or charismatic players is to have the party plot their next move OOC and then delegate the action to the most suitable character for it. So if you're the Art of War incarnate and I happen to be playing the 16 Int Marshal, you'll probably be contributing the most to the discussion on who should do what in the fight against the dragon, but once the dice hit the table I'll be the one yelling at the lily-livered maggots to move it.

[squiggit]

Generally yes.... But I've been wary of doing so lately because of some bad experiences.

Usually GMs imposing the "correct" way of playing a character with a given low mental stat and that "correct" way usually being hideously exaggerated. Like being asked to play an 8 int character as a drooling idiot and an 8 charisma character as a complete buffoon who has literally been threatened with death multiple times for opening her mouth. Because a -1 totally does that.

So I've been shying away from low mental scores.

[Azoth]

I will play them up as much as makes sense. Simply because sometimes it is my character's with high attributes that get them in trouble more than low.

Sure my 8str unseen seer is going to find someone else to haul heavy loads or move cumbersome things, but my 48Str Barbarian might break a door off its hinges by knocking or crush his goblet when he goes to grab it. The 8Cha druid may botch a diplomatic meeting, but the 36Cha bard now has to explain to the king why the prince is part fey when neither parent is.

Even boons can be turned hilarious due to the current circumstances of a party. The above barbarian was because we had spent months in the wilds fighting day in and out, so he forgot how to control his strength around normal people. The bard was because he saw the queen out shopping with only a small escort he bluffed past while thinking she was just some noble's spare daughter.

[GreyBlack]

Oh, definitely. My most recent character was a barbarian/ranger whose entire modus operendi was that he thought he was a bear. Charisma 8, I usually didn't understand the barest social interaction, often remarking that the plan should be to, "walk in there and challenge [BBEGOTW] for the alpha position." I had no aptitude for convincing anyone of anything and was often noted for "publicly marking my territory". However, I eventually became known as the great general after bull rushing a dragon through a boat and soloing a wyvern at level 5, with an adoring thousands who never questioned that i was, in fact, a bear.

[Gnome Alone]

Devil's advocate alert: I don't see why you wouldn't want to roleplay low ability scores, but you could always run it like even the mental ability scores are primarily physical: INT would be things like memory retention and innate math calculating capacity, WIS just perception, CHA just a sense of self without reference to social skills or personality and/or sexytimes appeal.

Leaving you free to have a low INT charracter who is clever, a low WIS character who is wise, a low CHA who people like cuz he's friendly... but again, I don't see why you'd want to do any of this; roleplaying low ability scores is fun.

[SiuiS]

Yup. Low charisma comes off as tacky and Unlikeable. Low intelligent jumps to conclusions and uses bad logic. Low strength gets tired easily and asks other people to do things constantly and doesn't even consider tasks that require high strength – conveniently not telling the high strength people they are options.

My favorite was a barbarian back in 2e using the trade 1for 1 rule (the DM thought it was too restrictive and so let us trade freely!), I had physical scores on the 20+ range, and mental stats of six. He was a lovable idiot who fell in love with a halfling ("elf!") who saved him from drowning because he was standing in a puddle and couldn't swim. The elf asked something vaguely like "do you?" As a manipulation technique, and responded to the "yes" with I do to, prompting the barbarian to proclaim they were now joyously married.

That game wasn't supposed to be a one shot, but boy did it turn into one. :smabiggrin:


E: oh! We also sort of enforce the idea that the difference between ability scores is more important than their numbers. So at epic levels, the high int/Cha medium wis caster sort of forgets that people don't recall emotions as calculations of magic force as expressed through the primary arcanum's of enchantment, and is a perfectly reasonable creature who happens to sound stark raving mad when they explain their goals – because they leave out the reasonable processes required to get to their conclusions and jump around a lot between previously proven true hypotheses without context or citation.

[Chronos]

Quoth Khay:

I had a fun campaign like this once! It wasn't actually D&D, but the equivalent would be a character with high-ish INT but abysmal CHA and WIS. It was a pretty ridiculous campaign all around and we were all just having fun with it, which led to some pretty silly moments. Such as my character figuring out that an assignment was actually a trap, but being unable to explain it to anyone - the explanation would always come out with way too much detail, or as an impenetrable pile of nested sentences.

Oh, yeah, that reminds me of another one. I had a dwarf druid with a maxed-out Wis and a decent Int... but a 6 Cha. I ran it as him always speaking cryptically, and just assuming that everyone would understand him. Like, "Once I change my skin, I shall need to change my skin", meaning that after he wildshapes, he's going to need some help putting on his armor custom-fitted for dire weasel form. I think he was probably more understandable when wildshaped, when he was restricted to pointing and grunts.

I never did get a chance to use "The avalanche has started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote", though.

[Gnome Alone]

I never did get a chance to use "The avalanche has started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote", though.

I'd be real tempted to try and shoehorn that into everything.

[Milodiah]

There once was a half-troll in my friend's game. He ended up with an INT of 4.

He had to roll a check to figure out doorknobs in hectic moments. Usually he failed, and walked through the wall bodily. It ended up being absolutely hilarious.

[Flickerdart]

There once was a half-troll in my friend's game. He ended up with an INT of 4.

He had to roll a check to figure out doorknobs in hectic moments. Usually he failed, and walked through the wall bodily. It ended up being absolutely hilarious.
Did they have doorknobs in medieval times? Now I'm curious.

Apparently they did not - doors had metal or leather latches up until the 1800s. Your half-troll was right to be confused.

[RoboEmperor]

Thanks for your opinions everyone. I appreciate it. So I was right to tell my fighter friend that he can't come up with strategies other than bashing things.

10 is average, 8 is below average. If only smart, clever, capable people make battle plans, no way a below average soldier can.

I guess I approached him wrong. Should of tried to make it a roleplay fun experience, instead of a slam a book in the face experience. I'll apologize to him and tell him to keep it in mind next time he dumps int for dex :P. I'd say 12 int is enough to be a good general, cause you gotta be above average to outsmart the average.

As for why I think charisma is submissive, it represents force of personality, which means higher charisma characters will dominate you personality wise. The what I think anyways.

[Ssalarn]

Did they have doorknobs in medieval times? Now I'm curious.

Apparently they did not - doors had metal or leather latches up until the 1800s. Your half-troll was right to be confused.

If this was a game set in a world like Golarion for Pathfinder or Eberron for 3.5, odds are pretty good they'd figured out doorknobs. One of the beautiful inconsistencies of anachronistic fantasy worlds is their ability to simultaneously contain dirt farming peasants with leather curtains for doors and "scientists" who can bend and break the laws of physics by wiggling their fingers, creating magnificent manses with doorknobs and indoor plumbing.

[Susano-wo]

I play my concept, which will have its own disadvantages at time (overly concerned with honor, or not willing to be harsh enough to bad people, etc), but I tend to give myself passes on things that I'm shoe-horned into using for my class (though I suppose that's more with not playing high scores than anything--like I don't feel the need for my character to be a body-builder just because maxing STR is best for most martial builds). Though we have typically rolled skewed toward higher stats in my groups, so truly low scores have not been a problem.

[The Insanity]

So I was right to tell my fighter friend that he can't come up with strategies other than bashing things.
No, you weren't. Telling your players how to roleplay their characters is never right.


10 is average, 8 is below average. If only smart, clever, capable people make battle plans, no way a below average soldier can.
A below average soldier can. He participated in a lot of battles so he has firsthand experience. Maybe he didn't come up with that awesome battle plan on his own with his cleverness, but he did see a similar situation a few months ago and his below average intelligence was enough to add 2 + 2 together and think "Gosh, that strategy I saw a few months ago would be perfect for this situation".

[RoboEmperor]

No, you weren't. Telling your players how to roleplay their characters is never right.


A below average soldier can. He participated in a lot of battles so he has firsthand experience. Maybe he didn't come up with that awesome battle plan on his own with his cleverness, but he did see a similar situation a few months ago and his below average intelligence was enough to add 2 + 2 together and think "Gosh, that strategy I saw a few months ago would be perfect for this situation".

I wasn't telling him how to roleplay his character, I was telling him to please START roleplaying his character :P

I agree with your 2nd statement, he can only remember good tactics from similar situations, not make one up.

[The Insanity]

I wasn't telling him how to roleplay his character, I was telling him to please START roleplaying his character :P
That's not how this sounds to me.

[NichG]

Thanks for your opinions everyone. I appreciate it. So I was right to tell my fighter friend that he can't come up with strategies other than bashing things.

No you weren't. As stated elsewhere, you are never right when trying to tell someone else how to play their character.

But even on top of that, the difference between 8, 10, and 12 Int is miniscule compared to training. A smart person who has never played chess or other similar games will generally lose to someone of below-average intelligence who has been playing chess for years.

In D&D, there isn't a 'make up good strategies' skill. It's up to the player to decide how good of a strategist they are. But if there were going to be a numerical representation of martial savvy, understanding the flow of the battlefield and things like that, it would probably be BAB. High BAB is a representation of the fact that this character has spent a good portion of his life training at getting better at fighting - not just hitting harder, since higher BAB doesn't increase damage, and not even just hitting better, since BAB acts as a prerequisite for feats that involve fighting in more complex ways. A warrior who has been in a thousand battles is probably going to be a better strategist than a really high-Int guy who has never actually seen a fight.

But he also might not be. That choice is the player's to make. You can represent your prowess in a fight as 'I've got really good body-sense and instincts now, and I just let that take over and then everything is dead' or you can represent it as 'I really understand concepts like positioning, attacking from advantage, how to deal with multiple combatants, how to keep my balance, etc. At first I just understood that for myself, but now I can look at other warriors and see how it applies to them too.' or you can represent it as 'drill sergeant said to always do a narrow diamond formation in a cross-fire, and he kept hitting me and my squadmates with blunted arrows until the lesson stuck'.

[Deadline]

I wasn't telling him how to roleplay his character

You really were. Oddly enough, a person who does this could be a perfect example of low CHA. A forceful, but incredibly abrasive personality. If you've ever watched Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog, Captain Hammer's speech about the homeless could be used as a great example of both low CHA and high CHA.

There's no hard and fast rule stating what low mental ability scores mean for roleplaying. So relax, and focus on playing your character instead of others.

[AnonymousPepper]

Wouldn't supporting a paladin mean that Asmodeus is increasing the amount of Good in the world, which is kind of unacceptable for the #1 chief devil?

Eh, for one, not a serious game. Also, he's too dumb to really advance any interests on his own, so... yeah. Honestly, if anything, he's actually done far more to advance the interests of Cheliax and therefore the Big A - thanks to a referral from him, Cheliax now boasts a fleet of airships. So, he's a comically inept goofball who happens to be an indirectly useful one regardless.

Anyway, point is, the gods love a good roleplayer.

[Ssalarn]

Wouldn't supporting a paladin mean that Asmodeus is increasing the amount of Good in the world, which is kind of unacceptable for the #1 chief devil?
In Mother of Flies, book 5 of the Council of Thieves AP from Paizo, there's actually a fairly in depth explanation of Asmodeus having paladins, including why he has them and how it works.

I think James Jacobs doesn't like that though and pretends it never happened now.

[jedipotter]

No you weren't. As stated elsewhere, you are never right when trying to tell someone else how to play their character.



I disagree. It's always right to tell someone how to play there character. Now player to player is just fluff. If player Bob tells player Jack something it's just an opinion and can be ignored. But the DM to player is more serious.

One of the jobs of the DM is too keep everyone in character. So that gives the DM rights to say things.

And even more so, as the DM controls the game, they have the right to alter what is happening in the game.


Though to take a step back, a good DM has each player write out at least a paragraph about their characters personality. The DM will look it over and make changes if needed....with a keen eye on adding negative stuff(doh, players always forget) And then the DM will make a mini questioner. And the player can add to the paragraph, but can only change it through agreed (player and DM) role play. This gives the DM a good blue print for the character to keep on track.

And playing your character is worth 1/3 the game XP, at least.

So with all that: the character has an INT of 7. And the player agreed to ''my character often forgets names and places'' as part of their character personality. So it's fine for the DM to say ''remember to forget'' after the third or so time the character remembers everything. And it does work the other way too. INT 18 and player wrote ''never does anything without a plan'', so the DM can say ''er, you sure your character wants to jump into the portal blindly?"

[Taveena]

In D&D, there isn't a 'make up good strategies' skill.

Martial Lore, Profession (Soldier), or Knowledge (History) could all work rather well for that - and it's worth pointing out how tiny the difference between a 10 int and an 8 int Soldier's check is there. +4 vs +3 is super tiny!

[jjcrpntr]

I had a player that rolled up random stats and a random race/class (using homebrew rolling method nothing crazy). He ended up with an elf ninja with 8 con.

So his concept was that he was a brave ninja that would try to fight by tumbling/stealthing around to get in to position but he decided it would be funny if he had to do a fort save to avoid falling into a coughing fit and take massive penalties to any roll he made afterwords.

Unfortunately he had to stop playing shortly after he made this guy but it was a lot of fun while he played it.

[RoboEmperor]

Alright, you guys are right. i'll apologize to him, and say that I just wished he would take his 8 int seriously next time, and maybe allocate more to it for roleplay reasons since we aren't power gaming.

[Gnome Alone]

There's the whole thing about how, even if it makes sense that they shouldn't be able to do super smart stuff with really low INT, one shouldn't tell people they can't, since it's kinda rude and it's just a game after all - plus it takes options away from people rather than increasing them; that is almost completely the opposite of this game's purported intent.

But there's also the thing about how 8 INT isn't even really low in the first place. That's like someone who's a bit slow on the uptake or can never remember anything unless they write it down several times, or something like that. I'm tired and I really should be asleep so I'm not gonna look up who said it, but someone earlier said that 7 and below is where things oughtta start getting noticeably impaired. And I agree with that interpretation. That's when we're hitting two standard deviations* below average; that's gonna start to show.

*uh, right? Math is my dump stat.

[ericgrau]

I don't if it's an 8. That's still low end of average, and way too often exaggerated. If it's a 6 I do. Many soldiers could be int 8, might even be average for them, and I think it's unfair to say they can't come up with battle plans when soldiering is what they do for a living. Even int 2 animals have pact tactics. They should be allowed to strategize freely even with in depth plans. But limited in non-soldiery ways such as battlefield geometry. No "If you lay the fireball just right we should be right outside the blast radius standing here, here and here". Even int 4 PCs should be allowed the basics such as to get into flanking position and so on.

[Milodiah]

Mental scores really are kinda tough on both ends, because it's far less quantifiable than stuff like strength.

Sure, it might be a bit hard to picture yourself with STR 3 or STR 30, but at least you know what it would entail. Having to brace yourself for pouring from a gallon jug of milk, maybe, or one-handing your buddy's couch when he asks you to help him move.

But really, we have to remember that we as players probably don't possess an INT of 16+. I mean, last IQ test I had came out at 123, and I'd guess that probably nets me a solid 14 or so. But I can't begin to imagine what it'd be like to have an INT of 18, let alone after the buffs come in. I mean, even Sherlock Holmes probably ranks at 18, or possibly 19 (Looking back on those books, Arthur Conan Doyle / Sherlock Holmes may have been the first min-maxer..."doesn't even care to learn that the Earth orbits the Sun because that'd be useless space in his memory" and so forth). As much as I hate those "we only use 10% of our brains" sayings, it's really got to be a bit like those resulting (silly) movies when the party wizard stacks bonuses to INT 30. Good luck planning like that guy can.

And even when we get into the 2-6 range, it's rather hard. Sure, a mentally handicapped human being can't think nearly as tactically as a wolf pack, but he can also learn a language, open doors, do rudimentary math, learn a simple trade, etc. Does it make sense to try to arbitrate what an INT-5 human could and couldn't come up with when half the argument is pitching things an animal can do better than him, and the other half things that he can do that an animal simply can't?

[Madhava]

As far as playing high ability scores... bear in mind that a lot of ignorant people sound like they know what they're talking about. :smallwink:

Intelligence is supposed to represent memory capacity & mental adroitness. A high intelligence character likely forgets very little, & maybe he's able to do calculous equations in his head during combat.

High intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that one knows a lot (although he could, potentially). Education is hingent upon experience. So you could have a regular berk with no education, who's sharp as a tack, & never forgets a thing, yet you would seldom know via just brief conversation. Similarly, one with below average intelligence (maybe 7 or 8) could be educated, to some extent. And with above average charisma, he could probably feign smarts, at least initially.

I think a wisdom score is the tricky thing to play. As a player, how is my intuition supposed to be better than anyone else's at the table? I usually find myself trying to fish for DM-clues OOC, when playing a high wisdom score (because really, what more can be done?).

With a low wisdom score? Hmm... yeah, I waste it with my crossbow. Someone like this is typically the go-to option. Brash. I like brash coupled with a low wisdom. Brash can be fun, in either a good or bad way.

Incidentally, I think that all of my half-orcs have had some degree of speech impediment, regardless of charisma score. Because tusks. If they extend outside the mouth, even by only a little, then how could they not interfere with talking?

[Renen]

Having all low mental scores:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/83b7f2e7efeb45afdb429012d6a8df3e/tumblr_inline_ndg983kU7T1qf1qhm.jpg

[JohnnyCancer]

Played a game where stats were rolled in order, ended up with a very low INT, high WIS character. Ended up playing him as someone who didn't contribute to planning because he was perceptive to know he had nothing worthwhile to contribute and said nothing. He was very stoic but waited to be told what to do frequently.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Generally in D&D I ignore these for a variety of reasons. In other games it might make more sense to play it up, but in D&D:

- Low stats just don't get very low. An 8 in a stat is a -1 on a task, which is negligible at even moderate levels. An 8 Cha bard has a higher ceiling on their Diplomacy skill than an 18 Cha sorceror by the time they hit Lv2 due to cross-class skill caps and early access to synergy bonuses (they can get +6 from synergies once they hit Lv2 in skills which the sorceror can't get 5 ranks in until Lv10).


Generally yes.... But I've been wary of doing so lately because of some bad experiences.

Usually GMs imposing the "correct" way of playing a character with a given low mental stat and that "correct" way usually being hideously exaggerated. Like being asked to play an 8 int character as a drooling idiot and an 8 charisma character as a complete buffoon who has literally been threatened with death multiple times for opening her mouth. Because a -1 totally does that.

So I've been shying away from low mental scores.

The above two posters are exactly right. A score of 8 is just a -1, just a 5% chance to fail where an average character would succeed at a relevant task; in terms of a modern high schooler, an 8 Int might mean they have an 80% average in a school where 85% is the average grade because they have a bit more trouble grasping the harder concepts, an 8 Dex might mean they score one or two fewer goals per season in hockey or soccer because their aim is a bit less exact, an 8 Con might mean they run a mile in gym class in 7 minutes instead of 6:30 because they get out of breath a bit faster, and so forth.

To put it in perspective, the difference between a trained-but-inexperienced 1st-level apprentice wizard's Spellcraft modifier or just-out-of-boot-camp soldier's Ride modifier and the corresponding modifier of someone who knows nothing about spells and horses is a +4, which is four times the difference between an 8 Int and a 10 Int, so as pointed out above someone with 4 ranks and an 8 Int is as good at a given skill as someone with 0 ranks and a a 16 Int. That's not pants-on-head stupid by any means, it just means they need a little training and practice to catch up outside their specialty and aren't quite as good at their specialty as a smarter/stronger/tougher/etc. person would be.


But really, we have to remember that we as players probably don't possess an INT of 16+. I mean, last IQ test I had came out at 123, and I'd guess that probably nets me a solid 14 or so.

Don't sell yourself short; on the contrary, I'd say that you have at least a 16 Int in D&D terms, and I'd guess most people on this forum would have above a 14. Going by this site (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx) there's either a 6.25% or 7.69% chance to get a 123 IQ or higher (depending on whether your test was a 15 SD or 16 SD test), which corresponds to (assuming the 3d6 rolling method) between a 15 Int (9.26% chance) and a 16 Int (4.63%). If we go by the 4d6-drop-lowest method, a 123 IQ is between a 16 Int (13% chance) and a 17 Int (5.79% chance), and an 18 Int has almost exactly the same odds as a 132 Int.

And of course, when you consider that Int "determines how well your character learns and reasons" for a character in a pseudo-Medieval post-apocalyptic world, whereas modern humans have vastly better educational systems (to help them to learn and to teach them how to learn better) and much broader background knowledge (to help them reason out unknowns), we could easily assume that modern humans would have a "racial" Int bonus to represent the fact that "peak human intelligence" of 18 for a D&D character would be lower than peak Int for a modern human. The same holds for Str, where "peak human strength" is 18 while a real-world weightlifter would be around 25 Str in D&D terms, mostly due to better nutrition, better techniques, and all the other correponding advancements we have relative to D&D-type humans.

Which is not to say that mapping attributes to real-life benchmarks is sensible or easy, but rather that trying to put 18s on a pedestal as awesome and unachievable heights of human prowess and deride 8s as crippling nadirs of wasted human potential is completely ridiculous. Roleplaying an 8 or 12 should be practically indistinguishable from roleplaying a 10; the difference between the complexity and effectiveness of the plans a 12 Int character vs. an 8 Int character would come up with due to their respective Ints would probably be dwarfed by the difference in plans due to the amount of time their players spend thinking them over out-of-character. Certainly when it comes to characters with ability scores of 18 18 18 17 17 16 we're talking about rare paragons of humanity, but characters with an 18 and otherwise relatively average scores (or a single 3 and otherwise average scores, for that matter) shouldn't be roleplayed as ridiculous outliers that some make them out to be.

[RoboEmperor]

-1 is significantly bigger than everyone here is thinking.

By your logic, a person with 18int is only 20% smarter than average. I disagree.

Person with 18int knows 4 more languages than a person with 10 int.

Person with 8int knows 1 less language than a person with 10 int, but since neither gets bonus languages, the former has to speak very simply/dumbly.

If you have 8 int, you're below average. You don't get to go to college, or even highschool debatably, and at best you can work minimum wage-ish jobs. Mundane, physical labor jobs, and can't think of anything yourself, only copy other people, and can't verify if what other people are doing is better or worse than what you're doing, or understand any proof/reasoning the smarter individual gives. Smart guy says it's ok, so it should be.

7 int or lower, is arguably mentally retarded.

[Rakoa]

I did this once for a Feral Half-Minotaur Half-Orc character with INT 3 (8 -2 -2 -2, boosted because of the minimum requirement for PCs). I used a stack of 50 index cards with his entire vocabulary. When a word he knew was used I'd pull that to the top of the stack. Words he didn't know were skipped most of the time. When one of his companions insisted on teaching him a new word, I picked whatever card was on the bottom of the stack and replaced it with the new word. Hijinks ensued a couple of times because of this, for example when the word "DON'T" got replaced. :smallbiggrin:

I like this a lot. How do you pull it off without bringing everything to a halt everytime your character opens his mouth, though, while you sort through cards?

[Vhaidara]

-1 is significantly bigger than everyone here is thinking.

By your logic, a person with 18int is only 20% smarter than average. I disagree.

Person with 18int knows 4 more languages than a person with 10 int.

Roughly 20%. Also, DnD handles languages terribly. A bard, going from level 1 to level 2, with an 8 Int, can master 5 languages, including 5 different alphabets.


Person with 8int knows 1 less language than a person with 10 int, but since neither gets bonus languages, the former has to speak very simply/dumbly.

No, they do not. By any means whatsoever. Nothing is required about any stat. I thought we covered this already.


If you have 8 int, you're below average. You don't get to go to college, or even highschool debatably, and at best you can work minimum wage-ish jobs. Mundane, physical labor jobs, and can't think of anything yourself, only copy other people, and can't verify if what other people are doing is better or worse than what you're doing, or understand any proof/reasoning the smarter individual gives. Smart guy says it's ok, so it should be.

I'm sorry, but again you are just wrong.
First, intelligence isn't required for high level jobs
Second, originality is, if anything, a property of Cha. You know, the Bard stat. The artist stat.
Third, Seeing if what someone else does is more effective is a matter of Wisdom

[Eldest]

-1 is significantly bigger than everyone here is thinking.

By your logic, a person with 18int is only 20% smarter than average. I disagree.

Person with 18int knows 4 more languages than a person with 10 int.

Person with 8int knows 1 less language than a person with 10 int, but since neither gets bonus languages, the former has to speak very simply/dumbly.

If you have 8 int, you're below average. You don't get to go to college, or even highschool debatably, and at best you can work minimum wage-ish jobs. Mundane, physical labor jobs, and can't think of anything yourself, only copy other people, and can't verify if what other people are doing is better or worse than what you're doing, or understand any proof/reasoning the smarter individual gives. Smart guy says it's ok, so it should be.

7 int or lower, is arguably mentally retarded.

You have a very, very poor idea of intelligence scaling, both in game and out.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm sorry, but again you are just wrong.
First, intelligence isn't required for high level jobs
Second, originality is, if anything, a property of Cha. You know, the Bard stat. The artist stat.
Third, Seeing if what someone else does is more effective is a matter of Wisdom

You're right. 8 intelligent guy can solve every mathematical equation, design amazing optimized buildings with the perfect thickness/distribution/mixture/combination for its purpose, and contemplate possible environmental contingencies, just takes him 1/5th more time. 8 intelligent guy can solve every single problem in the world, just takes him 20% longer. You can tell a guy with 8 intelligence, 8 wisdom, and 8 charisma to create and lead a country, that will last for centuries, dominating every single field in d&d compared to other countries, it just would take him 20% longer to make a plan.

The king's adviser? He doesn't need intelligence for that job. 8 intelligence is fine.
Chief engineer? Nope, 8 intelligence is fine
General of the army? Yeah, 8 intelligence. Guy only needs to know how to hit things with sticks. he can come up wiht the most amazing battle plans, just 20% longer than it would take a wizard.

To come up with a new, more efficient method no one ever thought of requires high charisma, not intelligence, because using your ability to influence others on wood and stone is better than using intelligence to figure out where the inefficiencies are and improve them. Because you're being original. You were original and thought of a better efficient system, but that's charisma, because it's all art.

By your logic, 8 int people can even cast level 9 spells, it just would take them 25% longer than a guy with 19 intelligence, because clearly, the stat's ability modifier is the only relevant thing here.


You have a very, very poor idea of intelligence scaling, both in game and out.

Right, because the game clearly didn't say intelligence represents a character's ability to analyze data, which clear 8 int people can do too only 20% slower. If you think analyzing data is not needed in any form of management job or math-related job, then you're right. You don't need it.

[Renen]

You are being just a tad too passive aggressive.

I think his point about low Int was that you dont need to be smart do so some impressive things. Like some people who have very low IQ, but can make music as good as Mozart, or crack complex math formulas w/o even looking at a calculator, while being terrible at simple things like driving a car for example.

[geekintheground]

You're right. 8 intelligent guy can solve every mathematical equation, design amazing optimized buildings with the perfect thickness/distribution/mixture/combination for its purpose, and contemplate possible environmental contingencies, just takes him 1/5th more time. 8 intelligent guy can solve every single problem in the world, just takes him 20% longer. You can tell a guy with 8 intelligence, 8 wisdom, and 8 charisma to create and lead a country, that will last for centuries, dominating every single field in d&d compared to other countries, it just would take him 20% longer to make a plan.

The king's adviser? He doesn't need intelligence for that job. 8 intelligence is fine.
Chief engineer? Nope, 8 intelligence is fine
General of the army? Yeah, 8 intelligence. Guy only needs to know how to hit things with sticks. he can come up wiht the most amazing battle plans, just 20% longer than it would take a wizard.

nobody is saying that the guy with 8 int would be a king's adviser, just that they arent bricks as you seem to suggest. why would someone like that even want to BE any of those things? i would think that they'd want a job in a field they actually specialize in... a

[Vhaidara]

Ignoring most of it because it is passive aggressive and completely ignoring my point


By your logic, 8 int people can even cast level 9 spells, it just would take them 25% longer than a guy with 19 intelligence, because clearly, the stat's ability modifier is the only relevant thing here.

Excuse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer) me (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/wilder.htm), but (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm) yes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm), characters with an 8 Int are entirely capable of casting 9th level spells.

[RoboEmperor]

You are being just a tad too passive aggressive.

I think his point about low Int was that you dont need to be smart do so some impressive things. Like some people who have very low IQ, but can make music as good as Mozart, or crack complex math formulas w/o even looking at a calculator, while being terrible at simple things like driving a car for example.

{scrubbed}

I agree mozart/art don't require high intelligence.

Plugging in numbers in formulas, it's pushing a little but yeah I guess 8 int can do that.

Understanding mathematical proofs, or making proofs? No, that's high intelligence. 8 int can't do that in a million years.

I'd say low int can do simple things like driving a car. They can be taught to do anything, but can't be the ones coming up with the stuff. They can build a car following a blueprint, but the high intelligent people are the ones designing new cars and thinking of other ways to improve existing inventions. But saying a 8 intelligence person becoming an engineer in the first place is very hard to accept. Car mechanic maybe, but not an engineer.

[geekintheground]

i think the disconnect here is what exactly constitutes "low" int. while someone thinks 8 is scraping the bottom of the barrel, others think that there isnt that big of a difference between 8 and 10 (-1 and +0)

[lsfreak]

I think you're also underestimating how common "low" stats are. More than 1 in 4 people are 8 Int or less, and of course same with all stats (assuming 3d6 roll in each stat). So, take your high school class. Would you seriously try and argue more than a quarter of them were too dumb to complete high school, are mentally capable of nothing other than minimum-wage jobs? Or 16% are 7 or below, do you think one out of every six people you know have such lack of intelligence you'd call them mentally retarded?

[Forrestfire]

Understanding mathematical proofs is something even the most unintelligent people can be taught, given enough time. Maybe not understanding the most complex ones, but let's remember that your argument is that Int 8 means you are unable to graduate high school or get into a college. I know for a fact that this is untrue.

No one expects the Int 8 character to be a king's advisor, but you're arguing for absurdity in the opposite direction.

Also, a general of an army? He's probably something like level 10 or so, has good Charisma and Wisdom, and has enough skill ranks to spare on the important skills, even with the penalty, because he's likely got levels in something like Warblade, Legendary Leader, or the like. Could even be a cleric, in which case he's got knowledge of tactics beamed directly into his head with a +20 competence bonus. Knowledge (History) is noted to help govern tactical skill, as is Profession (Soldier), iirc. Level 10ish with some masterwork books on the field means he's acing the lower-end "really tough questions" when he takes 10, and can hit the high-end, maximum DC, if he rolls well. With a small group of his own advisors and underlings, he can reliably take 10 on the check to hit DC 31 thanks to Aid Another. Works well enough for me.

[RoboEmperor]

I think you're also underestimating how common "low" stats are. More than 1 in 4 people are 8 Int or less, and of course same with all stats (assuming 3d6 roll in each stat). So, take your high school class. Would you seriously try and argue more than a quarter of them were too dumb to complete high school, are mentally capable of nothing other than minimum-wage jobs? Or 16% are 7 or below, do you think one out of every six people you know have such lack of intelligence you'd call them mentally retarded?

Where did you get the statistic that 1in4 people are 8 int or less? 10 is the average stat, so everyone has 10 unless otherwise noted.

Anyone with 8 int is rare, and anyone with 18 int is rare. Those with 18 int are arguably people who invent something new and advances technology or science on the global scale. By saying 8 int people are only 25% slower than 18 int people, you're saying a highschool dropout (one who dropped out due to non-social reasons) can invent the theory of special relativity like Einstein did, except 25% slower.

So my argument is this:
1. 18 int people are truly exceptional. Army generals who come up with the most innovative, never heard before strategies that lead them to huge victories have 18 int. They may not have an amazing education, but they are geniuses so they can come up with that stuff. If you read some famous battles in China, there's a guy who did a huge combination of feints, traps, and ambushes and slaughtered an army 100 times bigger than his. He was considered a genius before they brought him in to direct the army. You may argue a fighter with 14 int can do this, but not 8 int in my opinion.
2. 10 int people can't do what 18int people can.
3. Due to above mentioned reasons a 1 difference in intelligence score is a huge difference.

I'm not discussing rarity of stats. A guy is 8 int. It happened. Now saying he can do everything a 18 int person can is where my disagreement is.

I never said 8 int are dumb as a brick. But they are below average, meaning they can't be a good lawyer, strategist, CEO of a company, etc. A smart employee rising through the ranks v.s. a normal guy who just keeps his job for 40 years. 8int has to be dumber than the normal guy.


that your argument is that Int 8 means you are unable to graduate high school or get into a college. I know for a fact that this is untrue.

Uhh... what? Oh wait, you're talking about sons of rich people who buy their way into college. Ok, you're right about that.

[Troacctid]

10 is the average stat, so everyone has 10 unless otherwise noted.

That is not how averages work.

[Vhaidara]

Where did you get the statistic that 1in4 people are 8 int or less? 10 is the average stat, so everyone has 10 unless otherwise noted.

As he said, assuming 3d6 stat generation.


Anyone with 8 int is rare, and anyone with 18 int is rare.

False equivalency. An 8 Int is as rare as a 12. The comparison to an 18 goes to someone with an Int of 2. You know, dogs and the like.


I never said 8 int are dumb as a brick.

You said they had no chance of college, and probably flunked out of high school.


But they are below average, meaning they can't be a good lawyer, strategist, CEO of a company, etc.

Lawyer is as much Charisma as Int (persuasion and presentation of the argument), strategy is more experience (as presented by forrestfire above). A CEO, again, could just as easily be Cha, because making deals.

[Forrestfire]

I never said 8 int are dumb as a brick. But they are below average, meaning they can't be a good lawyer, strategist, CEO of a company, etc. A smart employee rising through the ranks v.s. a normal guy who just keeps his job for 40 years. 8int has to be dumber than the normal guy.

Um.



If you have 8 int, you're below average. You don't get to go to college, or even highschool debatably, and at best you can work minimum wage-ish jobs. Mundane, physical labor jobs, and can't think of anything yourself, only copy other people, and can't verify if what other people are doing is better or worse than what you're doing, or understand any proof/reasoning the smarter individual gives. Smart guy says it's ok, so it should be.

Emphasis mine. You kinda did.

[lsfreak]

Where did you get the statistic that 1in4 people are 8 int or less? 10 is the average stat, so everyone has 10 unless otherwise noted.

Because stats are rolled 3d6 for commoners, averaging out to 10 (actually, 10.5), hence why example NPCs with NPC classes have 3 10's and 3 11's in their stat blocks. Rolling an 8 or below in any given stat with 3d6 is 25.9ish%. Thus, roughly 1:4 people is 8 Int or believe, or 8 Cha or below, or 8 whatever or below. So like I said. Do you think more than 1 in 4 people you knew as a kid were too dumb to graduate high school, and that 1 in 6 is so mentally deficient to be labeled retarded?

[Milodiah]

Statistically by RAW, sure.

But the bell curve effect seems to come into effect when the DM actually looks at the dice rolls he got.

"Yeah...no. 20% of this village isn't mentally retarded, let's tweak those up to at least an 8 or 9."

Hooray DM fiat!

[Renen]

I'd argue with

Now saying he can do everything a 18 int person can is where my disagreement is.

Lets take a DnD example, you can be a lvl 20 wizard with 20 int and 8 cha
Or you can be a lvl 20 Sha'Ir with lvl 20 cha and 8 int.

Lemmy tell ya, that Sha'Ir can do as much as the wizard if not more.


Lets take one of the examples you used of a lawyer:
Lawyer with high int but low cha will win a trial by showing the judge how the law applies to the situation, and the judge will rule for him based on facts
Lawyer with high cha but low int will win a trial by getting the judge to like him so much that the judge will subconsciously think the lawyer is correct, or will use his own knowledge of law to fill in the gaps the lawyer missed (due to low int), because he likes the lawyer enough to try.

[atemu1234]

Where did you get the statistic that 1in4 people are 8 int or less? 10 is the average stat, so everyone has 10 unless otherwise noted.

Anyone with 8 int is rare, and anyone with 18 int is rare. Those with 18 int are arguably people who invent something new and advances technology or science on the global scale. By saying 8 int people are only 25% slower than 18 int people, you're saying a highschool dropout (one who dropped out due to non-social reasons) can invent the theory of special relativity like Einstein did, except 25% slower.

So my argument is this:
1. 18 int people are truly exceptional. Army generals who come up with the most innovative, never heard before strategies that lead them to huge victories have 18 int. They may not have an amazing education, but they are geniuses so they can come up with that stuff. If you read some famous battles in China, there's a guy who did a huge combination of feints, traps, and ambushes and slaughtered an army 100 times bigger than his. He was considered a genius before they brought him in to direct the army. You may argue a fighter with 14 int can do this, but not 8 int in my opinoin.
2. 10 int people can't do what 18int people can.
3. Due to above mentioned reasons a 1 difference in intelligence score is a huge difference.

I'm not discussing rarity of stats. A guy is 8 int. It happened. Now saying he can do everything a 18 int person can is where my disagreement is.

I never said 8 int are dumb as a brick. But they are below average, meaning they can't be a good lawyer, strategist, CEO of a company, etc. A smart employee rising through the ranks v.s. a normal guy who just keeps his job for 40 years. 8int has to be dumber than the normal guy.

Smart =/= able to survive a normal work environment. A lot of people with certain mental disorders are certified genii, but are unable to perform in even high schools, let alone college or high-stakes business. Vice-versa, people with 85 IQ (IE more of a difference than between 8 INT and the normal of 10/11) can function in society seamlessly, without even the appearance of difficulty.

Also the 25% longer time thing? It might not work that way, but people overestimate the validity of intelligence in accomplishing certain tasks, especially in D&D. Most are perfectly fine at 8 INT, and its real-life equivalent.

[Troacctid]

Smart =/= able to survive a normal work environment.

Given that Profession is Wisdom-based, they're actually almost entirely unrelated.

[atemu1234]

Given that Profession is Wisdom-based, they're actually almost entirely unrelated.

Should that be blue text? That felt like blue text. Though true, nonetheless.

[RoboEmperor]

That is not how averages work.

We're not talking about mathematical averages. IIRC the "average human" has 10 stats all across. That's where I'm basing "average" on. We're not talking about adventurers, who are exceptional.


As he said, assuming 3d6 stat generation.

False equivalency. An 8 Int is as rare as a 12. The comparison to an 18 goes to someone with an Int of 2. You know, dogs and the like.

You said they had no chance of college, and probably flunked out of high school.

Lawyer is as much Charisma as Int (persuasion and presentation of the argument), strategy is more experience (as presented by forrestfire above). A CEO, again, could just as easily be Cha, because making deals.

Again, I'm basing my stats on the "10 stats all around is the average human" fact. So anyone with 8 or 12 stats are exceptional, and 18 is truly exceptional.

I admit error on the college stuff. A lot of below average people go to college. In my definition, average person graduates high school with a 2.0 gpa, so likewise they can graduate college with the same gpa. If a guy has higher gpa, he's not 10 int, if he's lower, he's not 10 int.

Lawyer and CEO, you're right. CHA has a huge importance in those jobs as well, but strategy and mathematical knowledge is also important. A successfuly CEO must have high INT and CHA, maybe even WIS to accurately access the situation, but definitely, not 8 int.


Um.

Emphasis mine. You kinda did.

{scrubbed}

A car mechanic who can fix every car, but is unable to design a new engine, or doesn't know how to handle a custom modified car, would be around 8-12int. They're not dumb as a brick.


Because stats are rolled 3d6 for commoners, averaging out to 10 (actually, 10.5), hence why example NPCs with NPC classes have 3 10's and 3 11's in their stat blocks. Rolling an 8 or below in any given stat with 3d6 is 25.9ish%. Thus, roughly 1:4 people is 8 Int or believe, or 8 Cha or below, or 8 whatever or below. So like I said. Do you think more than 1 in 4 people you knew as a kid were too dumb to graduate high school, and that 1 in 6 is so mentally deficient to be labeled retarded?

Rolling stuff is for PCs. Average is 10-11 for a fact. Real life =/= d&d. By definition, average NPCs will get a 2.0 gpa. Anyone who gets higher than that is more than 10 int. Also, anyone can go to the gym and increase their STR to 18, can't do that in d&d. Anyone can receive training in gymnastics and get their dex to 18. Arguably, you can train people to be smarter too, and definitely train them to be good salesmen. Real life people can't be broken up into stats, even if you did every stat is reachable to 18 all around, etc.

STR->Gym
DEX->Gym
CON->Eat healthier, but there is a limit. You could have some disease or genetic defect.
INT->Can improve your ability to analyze data, so maybe if Einstein is 18, you can train a guy to 14-16int? Kids who fail a subject sent to a cram school who beats the living **** out of you for every mistake comeback and get perfect in that subject.
WIS->Learning from mistakes. If you made a lot of mistakes and accumulated experience, you have arguably higher WIS. This can increase.
CHA->Salesman school. It's trained. If you're talking about expressing yourself with paintings, also trainable.




Lets get some stuff clear. Stop bringing in real people. Your friends and family aren't set by the rules of d&d. We're trying to illustrate to eachother what we think a 8 int person is capable of.

I say 8 int is below average, therefore can't do anything an average person does.
You're saying 8 int and 18int is not much different. This is disagreement.

If you're saying 10int and 8int is small difference, ok, I can maybe work with that, but if you're saying 10 int guys can do ingenius things, then no, we disagree, If the ingenius things stemmed from extensive experience, that would make sense.

Higher stats can compensate, so can counsel with smarter individuals. Skill points can also compensate. But if you tell me a 18str, 14dex, 14 con, 8int, 8wis, 8cha fighter can come up with amazing battle plans, or lead anyone in battle, or doesn't fall for taunts/ambushes, then we disagree.

Our misunderstanding may have stemmed from the impression I gave off that int = everything. That wasn't what I was trying to say, but since we were talking about int, I was focusing solely on that, ignoring WIS and CHA. That is probably my bad. Also ignored skill points.

[atemu1234]

We're not talking about mathematical averages. IIRC the "average human" has 10 stats all across. That's where I'm basing "average" on. We're not talking about adventurers, who are exceptional.



Again, I'm basing my stats on the "10 stats all around is the average human" fact. So anyone with 8 or 12 stats are exceptional, and 18 is truly exceptional.

I admit error on the college stuff. A lot of below average people go to college. In my definition, average person graduates high school with a 2.0 gpa, so likewise they can graduate college with the same gpa. If a guy has higher gpa, he's not 10 int, if he's lower, he's not 10 int.

Lawyer and CEO, you're right. CHA has a huge importance in those jobs as well, but strategy and mathematical knowledge is also important. A successfuly CEO must have high INT and CHA, maybe even WIS to accurately access the situation, but definitely, not 8 int.



If you had employees you'd know. They can do everything by the book, but if you tell/discuss with them 1 thing not in the book, they don't know squat. They're not dumb, but they're no better than people just cramming stuff for finals. They just know how to plug stuff into equations or follow instructions, not understanding each component fully. I would say those guys have 10-12 int, but wouldn't bet my life that they'd contribute to any design process of a new product.

A car mechanic who can fix every car, but is unable to design a new engine, or doesn't know how to handle a custom modified car, would be around 8-12int. They're not dumb as a brick.



Rolling stuff is for PCs. Average is 10-11 for a fact. Real life =/= d&d. By definition, average NPCs will get a 2.0 gpa. Anyone who gets higher than that is more than 10 int. Also, anyone can go to the gym and increase their STR to 18, can't do that in d&d. Anyone can receive training in gymnastics and get their dex to 18. Arguably, you can train people to be smarter too, and definitely train them to be good salesmen. Real life people can't be broken up into stats, even if you did every stat is reachable to 18 all around, etc.

STR->Gym
DEX->Gym
CON->Eat healthier, but there is a limit. You could have some disease or genetic defect.
INT->Can improve your ability to analyze data, so maybe if Einstein is 18, you can train a guy to 14-16int? Kids who fail a subject sent to a cram school who beats the living **** out of you for every mistake comeback and get perfect in that subject.
WIS->Learning from mistakes. If you made a lot of mistakes and accumulated experience, you have arguably higher WIS. This can increase.
CHA->Salesman school. It's trained. If you're talking about expressing yourself with paintings, also trainable.




Lets get some stuff clear. Stop bringing in real people. Your friends and family aren't set by the rules of d&d. We're trying to illustrate to eachother what we think a 8 int person is capable of.

I say 8 int is below average, therefore can't do anything an average person does.
You're saying 8 int and 18int is not much different. This is disagreement.

If you're saying 10int and 8int is small difference, ok, I can maybe work with that, but if you're saying 10 int guys can do ingenius things, then no, we disagree.

In a theoretical sense, there isn't a difference between how a pc and an NPC are created. It's just the stats for an AVERAGE member of the species are what's listed, but it doesn't have to be.

Also, the real people examples should be allowed, simply because they prove the point. The d&d system doesn't say, "You most roleplay your 8 INT character as if he got hit over the head with a brick during his formative years." The rolls mimic a bell curve, as most statistics IRL do, because it's supposed to mimic that.

Also, no one is saying 8 INT and 18 INT are the same, but the difference between 10 and 8 is miniscule. In fact, the 18-8 comparison was blatant reductio ad absurdum.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You're right. 8 intelligent guy can solve every mathematical equation, design amazing optimized buildings with the perfect thickness/distribution/mixture/combination for its purpose, and contemplate possible environmental contingencies, just takes him 1/5th more time. 8 intelligent guy can solve every single problem in the world, just takes him 20% longer. You can tell a guy with 8 intelligence, 8 wisdom, and 8 charisma to create and lead a country, that will last for centuries, dominating every single field in d&d compared to other countries, it just would take him 20% longer to make a plan.

You'll note that when I said a character with 8 Int was only 5% worse than one with 10 Int, I said that a -1 means that that character has a 5% chance to fail where an average character would succeed at the same task. Yes, there are tasks with a DC of 20 that the 8 Int character with no ranks can't possibly succeed at because his maximum result is a 19; there are also tasks with a DC of 25 that an 18 Int character can't possibly succeed at because his maximum result is a 24, yet no one is calling him pants-on-head stupid mouth-breather.

8 is by definition below average, and you certainly wouldn't give someone with an 8 Int an important Int-based job to complete unless all the other potential hires had a 7 Int or below, but this extreme exaggeration that 8 Int = retarded, 8 Cha = social pariah, etc. is simply wrong.


I agree mozart/art don't require high intelligence.

Plugging in numbers in formulas, it's pushing a little but yeah I guess 8 int can do that.

Understanding mathematical proofs, or making proofs? No, that's high intelligence. 8 int can't do that in a million years.

As Forrestfire pointed out, anyone who has taken a geometry class can understand mathematical proofs; that means basically everyone in the second year of high school for US students, and our education system is famously and stereotypically terrible. What you seem to be ignoring is that "understanding" something and "doing" something is not a binary "Can you do this? Yes/No" question. You can understand some basic proofs and still get a D in Geometry because the more complex ones are beyond you (and, conversely, you can get a D in Geometry because you freak out during a test and forget steps but still understand proofs conceptually). You can understand proofs very well, but have required many hours of study to get to that point (and, conversely, you can study for hours and hours to be able to mechanically plug in steps to proofs on a test without understanding the underlying concepts at all).

Since we're talking percentages and 20-step scales anyway, let's go all the way and assign DCs to test scores for the sake of this example. Joe Average has a 10 Int and 0 ranks in Knowledge (Geometry) when he sits down and takes his first Geometry test of the year. "Pass a Geometry test" is a DC 14 task (minimum passing grade being 70%), with each additional letter grade adding to the DC until DC 20 for "Get an A+ on a Geometry test". He has plenty of time for the test, so he takes his time and double-checks his proofs (i.e. takes 20) and gets a 20: Success! 100%! A+!

Bob Below Average (Bob B. or Bobby, for short) has an 8 Int and 0 ranks in Knowledge (Geometry). He, too, takes 20, but only manages a 19, for a 95%, because he goes a bit slower and doesn't manage to finish the last question on the test in time. If this were an open-book test (i.e. he had a masterwork tool for +2 on Kn: Geometry checks) Bobby could find and apply the appropriate information faster to pass the test (and maybe even get a 21 for a 105% if this test has extra credit). Harry Held-Back has an 8 Int, but 4 ranks in Knowledge (Geometry) as he took and barely failed this class last semester, retaining most of the knowledge depite having to repeat the class; he can take his time on this test as well, and because he knows proofs backwards and forwards he can do better than either of the other two. Steve Superior has an 18 Int and 4 ranks of Knowledge because he loves math and read the textbook cover-to-cover; with an open-book test he can whiz through the test (i.e. take 10 instead of 20) for an A+, but he's not doing anything that Bobby and Harry can't do, just doing it faster and easier.


1. 18 int people are truly exceptional. Army generals who come up with the most innovative, never heard before strategies that lead them to huge victories have 18 int. They may not have an amazing education, but they are geniuses so they can come up with that stuff. If you read some famous battles in China, there's a guy who did a huge combination of feints, traps, and ambushes and slaughtered an army 100 times bigger than his. He was considered a genius before they brought him in to direct the army. You may argue a fighter with 14 int can do this, but not 8 int in my opinion.

Again, you're vastly blowing the meaning of an 18 out of proportion.

Would you consider movie stars and entertainers to be super geniuses like the cited general? Say, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Natalie Portman, Madonna, that sort of entertainer?

Well, guess what: remember how I pointed out that an 18 Int maps to a 132 IQ in terms of rarity in the population? If we were to stat out those three in D&D, they'd all have an 18 Int, because they and several other celebrities (http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-famous-people-with-surprisingly-high-iqs/) have IQs of 135 and above. Sure, some on that list did the stereotypical genius things like graduate high school very early, but take Steve Martin: went to California State, majored in philosophy, went into acting, and now flies under the radar making comedy movies and some music on the side. They are a perfect example of how lower-Int characters are hard to distinguish from higher-Int characters and can do the same tasks with varying degrees of ease, as you'd be hard-pressed to pick out the 18 Int celebrities from the 15 Int celebrities from the 12 Int celebrities because their work doesn't require them to perform brain surgery with one hand while coding Facebook with the other and dictating poetry on top of all that.

So to come back to the original point: if you want to roleplay someone with 18 Int, you can just as easily yell at your fellow PCs to COME WIV ME IF YOU VANT TO LIVE! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6z4yiq4_K8&t=0m12s) as sport an exaggerated circumlocutory polysyllabic vocabulary, and it will be just as valid because 18 Int does not equate to "Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking cloned themselves a baby" and 8 Int does not equate to "THOG WANT POKE THING WITH STICK."


We're not talking about mathematical averages. IIRC the "average human" has 10 stats all across. That's where I'm basing "average" on. We're not talking about adventurers, who are exceptional.
[...]
Again, I'm basing my stats on the "10 stats all around is the average human" fact. So anyone with 8 or 12 stats are exceptional, and 18 is truly exceptional.
[...]
Rolling stuff is for PCs. Average is 10-11 for a fact.

The "average human" has 3d6 stats across the board, just as the adventurer standard is 4d6b3. You can assign commoners 10 10 10 10 10 10 for convenience, just as you can assign PCs the elite array of 15 14 13 12 10 8. Array generation is method 3 of attribute generation, behind rolling and point buy, and is specifically just a time-saving simplification; the normal rules are as follows:


All PCs and all the NPCs described in this section are “elite,” a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above-average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don’t get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. The monsters described in the Monster Manual are average characters rather than elite ones (though elite monsters also exist). Likewise, some fighters, wizards, and so on are average people rather than elites; they have fewer hit points and lower ability scores than the NPCs described here.


{scrubbed}

{scrubbed}

[Vhaidara]

Higher stats can compensate, so can counsel with smarter individuals. Skill points can also compensate. But if you tell me a 18str, 14dex, 14 con, 8int, 8wis, 8cha fighter can come up with amazing battle plans, or lead anyone in battle, or doesn't fall for taunts/ambushes, then we disagree.

Who are you going to trust to lead you into battle
Option A: A veteran soldier who has little instinct for strategy or leadership, represented by being level 10 with all 8s for mentals, who has been through a dozen wars (not battles, wars)
or
Option B: A rookie commander raised and pampered for the position of leadership, represented by a level 1 Marshal with a 14 Int, 12 Wis, and 16 Cha, who has never even seen an actual battle?


What we are saying is that anyone can do that hard things that 19 stat chars can do. It is just significantly HARDER to do them.

[RoboEmperor]

You know what? Let's just stop here and agree to disagree. Changing anyone's minds of anything (including mine) would require a really, really long discussion not related to d&d, so lets stop.

By mathematical proofs I don't mean geometry, I'm talking calculus, differential equations and the like, not geometry, but whatever.

Stopping here!

[atemu1234]

You know what? Let's just stop here and agree to disagree. Changing anyone's minds of anything (including mine) would require a really, really long discussion not related to d&d, so lets stop.

By mathematical proofs I don't mean geometry, I'm talking calculus, differential equations and the like, not geometry, but whatever.

Stopping here!

Basically, anyone with experience can accomplish more than an innate prodigy, just in general. Also, the discussion is innate to d&d, as it is a roleplaying game. However, if you wish to stop here, I suppose I will too, at least on this topic, unless someone else has more to say?

[RoboEmperor]

I never said experience doesn't overcome talent :\
I'm a firm believer that as long as the person doesn't have a physical defect in the brain, everyone can do everything with the right amount of effort and resources.


{scrubbed}

{scrubbed}

I believe everyone can pass every course with straight As (non-opinion based courses, so art and poetry don't count :P. Getting As in those courses are out of your control). I also believe everyone can raise their INT. They maybe slow now, but with the right motivation and education, they'll be solving things faster than other people. They might not be geniuses, innovative, or challenge tradition, but they'll be able to process and analyze data and give you sound advice. So flunky student who doesn't know what's what because he didn't study (8 int because he has no ability to analyze data) becomes 14 or 16 int after said training and becomes a good accountant.

We were discussing what 8 int people can do, not whether "dumb people" can't accomplish crap or graduate college, or whether prodigies are superior to the hard worker.

{scrubbed}

Does this count as continuing the discussion? o_o. I said I'd stop but it'd be hypocritical of me if I didn't stop. D:

I'm not defending my point! I'm just clarifying what I said and what I didn't say! This doesn't count as continuing discussion!

[squiggit]

The problem is twofold

-Low stats can be interpreted in different fashions. A low charisma character could be weak willed and submissive. But he could also be pig-headed, brash, and socially oblivious

-You're putting too much weight on stats. The difference between 8 and 10 int is a -1 to relevant checks, which is literally the smallest possible difference the system can support. Asking someone to roleplay such a tiny mechanical disadvantage in such a significant fashion feels almost toxic in a way and fails to line up with the actual numbers

-Education and Intelligence are not the same thing. The 8 int, 14 wisdom sergeant may in fact have a better strategy than the 16 int 10 wisdom captain simply because of experience.

Encouraging a player to roleplay and helping them with it is one thing, but this example comes off more as spitefully punishing the player for taking a -1 to their int check.

[ericgrau]

Commoners roll 3d6 for an average of 10.5 and a standard deviation of about 3 meaning 68% are 7.5-13.5. Anything in this range is pretty normal and should not be exaggerated in roleplay. 95% are 4.5-16.5, so anything outside this range is especially smart or dumb. 4.5-7.5 and 13.5-16.5 are a fairly normal level of smart or dumb.

Or you can use the non-elite array for 13,12,11,10,9,8 as ability scores meaning all scores are pretty much normal with nothing exceptional.



-Education and Intelligence are not the same thing. The 8 int, 14 wisdom sergeant may in fact have a better strategy than the 16 int 10 wisdom captain simply because of experience.
Well experience is a third thing. You can be level 1 with no life or death fights under your belt and have a 14 wisdom. High int and low wisdom is the absent minded professor. High wis and low int is one who is well aware of his surroundings and situation but is less able to process it. With experience you may know what to do in a common situation either way, while new situations may involve noticing them (wis) and figuring out what to do about them (int). The first time the wis guy may have the advantage, while the second time the int guy may have time to process it even though he was not aware of it at first.

[Curmudgeon]

I like this a lot. How do you pull it off without bringing everything to a halt everytime your character opens his mouth, though, while you sort through cards?
The cards just let me implement the MRU (most recently used) ordering. I also had a single printed sheet with all his vocabulary organized by nouns, verbs, & c. in alphabetically ordered columns so I could compose his speech and single out what he recognized when others spoke. I did end up fairly often frantically busy with the deck to bubble the most recent words up to the top when other people took their turns, because their PCs often exercised their right to free (action) speech.

[hamishspence]

Commoners roll 3d6 for an average of 10.5 and a standard deviation of about 3 meaning 68% are 7.5-13.5. Anything in this range is pretty normal and should not be exaggerated in roleplay. 95% are 4.5-16.5, so anything outside this range is especially smart or dumb. 4.5-7.5 and 13.5-16.5 are a fairly normal level of smart or dumb.

Or you can use the non-elite array for 13,12,11,10,9,8 as ability scores meaning all scores are pretty much normal with nothing exceptional.

Or both. You could have some people use the non-elite array, some roll 3d6.

Rounding off - 8-13 is "pretty normal" (and, probably not coincidentally, matches the non-elite array)

5-16 is "a fairly normal level of smart or dumb" - which makes sense, given that the elite array maxes out at 16.

In order to account for the 1-in a million prodigy-types, you could use the Prodigy of (stat) template from DMG2, and maybe the Paragon mini-class from Unearthed Arcana, to represent the exceptional, when an 18 in a stat is not nearly enough.

[jedipotter]

I never said experience doesn't overcome talent :\
I'm a firm believer that as long as the person doesn't have a physical defect in the brain, everyone can do everything with the right amount of effort and resources.

This sounds good, but it's not accurate. Sure half of intelligence is hard work, but the other half is biology.



I believe everyone can pass every course with straight As (non-opinion based courses, so art and poetry don't count :P. Getting As in those courses are out of your control). I also believe everyone can raise their INT. They maybe slow now, but with the right motivation and education, they'll be solving things faster than other people. They might not be geniuses, innovative, or challenge tradition, but they'll be able to process and analyze data and give you sound advice. So flunky student who doesn't know what's what because he didn't study (8 int because he has no ability to analyze data) becomes 14 or 16 int after said training and becomes a good accountant.

Not exactly. The Int 8 student becomes an Int 8 accountant, but they use their higher wisdom and charisma to cover for the low intelligence. Or they just use their Int 8 to the best of thier ability.



I was saying 8 int can't graduate college, so if a guy graduates college, he's not 8 int.:

I'd say anyone of Int 6 or higher can graduate college. And something like half the students are Int 8 or less. Other then cheating, remember that to pass, a person just needs to meet benchmarks. And even the Int 6 person can remember facts for a couple hours and write them on a test.


And remember Intelligence is not so easy to put into a single number. There is a lot more to intelligence then pure facts.

The average criminal like a con artist has an Int of 8, so how does he fool the doctor with the Int of 16? Well, they do, everyday. It's not like every criminal has an Int of 18, yet millions fall for scams all the time. Right now, somewhere in America, someone is giving Prince Nageri their back account information after getting one e-mail.

So real intelligence is also things like: predictions based on facts, reading people, thinking things through, awareness, and what is called ''common sense'' and more.... It's memory recall. It's putting two things together. It's creativity. And so on.

A lot of what we would call ''smart people'' can get by just fine with an Int of 8. The Int 8 doctor is a dermatologist or an optometrist or any physiotherapist type or social doctor. They are perfectly qualified for their limited field, but that is all. Though, also note the Int 14 ER doctor and the Int 16 emergency trauma surgeon would be lost in anyone of the above doctors fields. Sure, some can adapt, but not all.

Though too, some of this is wisdom too....

[goto124]

If a player brings in a low Int character, but doesn't want to actively roleplay his dumbness, is it alright for the DM to say 'RP the dumbness, or roll a character with higher Int and lower your other stats because we don't want roll-players here'?

IMHO, there isn't really a reason to oppose someone else's RPing unless it disrupts the game. And failing to RP low (ability score) doesn't disrupt the game. The player doesn't have to make his character talk wierdly or do insanely stupid things, he could simply not have his PC solve the complicated Puzzle of the High Wizard and such.

[Jeff the Green]

Let's put it this way: an 8 in 3d6 is somewhere between 17th and 25th percentile, meaning that he's smarter than 17-25% of people. This is not brilliant, but by no means does it require that they be unable to speak colloquial Common (i.e. Common as it is actually spoken, not "Common as misused by idiots") or even multiple languages (in many places in the world being bilingual is a minimum requirement for functioning in society), be unable to come up with sensible strategies, not know a lot about a particular subject, or to effectively lead. It's around an IQ of 87, which is two points below "average" IQ classification. We literally expect a larger difference between two tests of the same person than between "average" and that score. Heck, even a 6 is at the high end of "borderline impaired or delayed". You literally have to drop down to a 4 to get to what is generally accepted as having a significant disability, and even a 3 doesn't drop to "moderately impaired or delayed". (And there's a bright line between 2 and 3 such that the difference is categorical rather than merely quantitative, so you can't really go further. If you could, you'd need to drop to 1 for "moderately impaired or delayed".)

Intelligence 8 is. Not. Stupid.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

And even the Int 6 person can remember facts for a couple hours and write them on a test.
[...]
So real intelligence is also things like: predictions based on facts, reading people, thinking things through, awareness, and what is called ''common sense'' and more.... It's memory recall. It's putting two things together. It's creativity. And so on.

Keep in mind that in D&D, Intelligence has nothing to do with remembering or knowing things:


Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as intelligence quotient, but it also includes mnemonic ability, reasoning, and learning ability outside those measured by the written word.


Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

So in computer terms, Int is your processor speed (how quickly and accurately you reason things out) and your RAM (how much you can keep in "working memory" to make chains of deduction and such), not your hard drive capacity. Knowing and recalling facts is covered by Knowledge skills in 3e, and relevant non-weapon proficiencies in AD&D.

This is why the comparison of Int mods to skill mods has been repeated so often in this discussion. A die-hard Trekkie who can quote from the TNG technical manual and expound at length on comparative Federation politics between TOS and Voyager has definitely invested way too many ranks in Knowledge (Star Trek), but he could have an Int of 6 or 10 or 16 or any other score. If he has a low Int, it might have taken him a long time to read and watch all the relevant information and make those connections (to the point that he might be a Star Trek idiot savant who can handle nothing but Star Trek trivia), and if he has a high Int he might have been able to watch just a few TNG episodes once each and extrapolate how the Enterprise systems work and how the Federation-Klingon relationship differs from that in TOS, but he ends up with the same factual knowledge at the end of the day.


Reading people, intuiting things, recognizing patterns, and such falls under Wisdom, not Intelligence. Someone with high Int and low Wis might be able to easily reason out from the available evidence why Susan acted so mean to Rachel at dinner last weekend based on what he knows about them, but might have trouble taking a step back and seeing that the way Susan acted toward Jill and Sarah derives from similar circumstances and character traits. Someone with high Wis and low Int might be able to easily understand a complicated relationship between three different laws in physics class but might not be able to articulate the logic behind that intuition to other people or perhaps notice the same sort of relationship with a different set of more complex equations.

[NichG]

If a player brings in a low Int character, but doesn't want to actively roleplay his dumbness, is it alright for the DM to say 'RP the dumbness, or roll a character with higher Int and lower your other stats because we don't want roll-players here'?

I think that's pushing it in most games. Certainly phrasing it the way you have is unnecessarily hostile, but if I strip that phrasing away then it's basically the DM saying 'in this game, certain stats are required for certain RP'. I don't personally care for that approach, but I can see a design space for games that work that way. At the same time, 3.5ed D&D isn't the sort of game where I'd expect to see something like that done well, for the various reasons already stated in this thread, so I think it's far less justifiable to do that as a 3.5ed D&D DM.

It might fit better in 1ed, 2ed, or 5ed, where there's a general pattern of using raw stat checks to evaluate a large variety of tasks not directly covered by the rules. The implication there is that the stats are supposed to be much wider than their explicit mechanical functions or modifiers to skills. Even then, it's a bit jarring.

There's a game whose title I can't remember where everyone is playing a highschool girl in a clique, and you have to bid over things like 'being the smart one' or 'being the popular one' at character creation. I suppose that's the kind of game where this kind of thing makes the most sense to me.

[Banjoman42]

To reply to the original post, yes, I role play ability scores. One of my players loves too. Currently, he plays a character with 4 constitution (even I hardly know how he survives) and 8 wisdom. Combine this with the fact that he worships the god of death means that he usually dies once every three games, usually by paladins, but occasionally other players.

[jedipotter]

Keep in mind that in D&D, Intelligence has nothing to do with remembering or knowing things:

Except for the things like knowledge skill checks based on intelligence for a character to remember things...



This is why the comparison of Int mods to skill mods has been repeated so often in this discussion. A die-hard Trekkie who can quote from the TNG technical manual and expound at length on comparative Federation politics between TOS and Voyager has definitely invested way too many ranks in Knowledge (Star Trek), but he could have an Int of 6 or 10 or 16 or any other score. If he has a low Int, it might have taken him a long time to read and watch all the relevant information and make those connections (to the point that he might be a Star Trek idiot savant who can handle nothing but Star Trek trivia), and if he has a high Int he might have been able to watch just a few TNG episodes once each and extrapolate how the Enterprise systems work and how the Federation-Klingon relationship differs from that in TOS, but he ends up with the same factual knowledge at the end of the day.

All true. Mental abilities are impossible to ''rate'' by just one single number. You would really need like 25 intelligence related scores.



Reading people, intuiting things, recognizing patterns, and such falls under Wisdom, not Intelligence. Someone with high Int and low Wis might be able to easily reason out from the available evidence why Susan acted so mean to Rachel at dinner last weekend based on what he knows about them, but might have trouble taking a step back and seeing that the way Susan acted toward Jill and Sarah derives from similar circumstances and character traits. Someone with high Wis and low Int might be able to easily understand a complicated relationship between three different laws in physics class but might not be able to articulate the logic behind that intuition to other people or perhaps notice the same sort of relationship with a different set of more complex equations.

Intelligence and Wisdom have a lot of cross over. Reading people, for example, does use a lot of intelligence, but also needs a lot of wisdom to make sense out of all the information. It's the classic dreamer vs builder or even common person vs engineer. For example, my old house had this odd feature: the bedroom light switch was in the hall way, and there was no light switch in the bed room. Oops...low wisdom builder.

[LudicSavant]

You should roleplay in-game character capabilities, rather than the metagame labels that grant you those capabilities. If you have 6 Charisma and a +25 to every social check, roleplaying as a person who can't navigate a social situation doesn't make much sense. Likewise, a character with 18 Charisma and no trained social skills isn't exactly a master of social situations.

[Renen]

If your gm makes you RP low scores, grab one of his NPCs, butt em to high heaven, and ask the DM to properly RP someone with 25+ in every mental score.

[jedipotter]

If a player brings in a low Int character, but doesn't want to actively roleplay his dumbness, is it alright for the DM to say 'RP the dumbness, or roll a character with higher Int and lower your other stats because we don't want roll-players here'?

IMHO, there isn't really a reason to oppose someone else's RPing unless it disrupts the game. And failing to RP low (ability score) doesn't disrupt the game. The player doesn't have to make his character talk wierdly or do insanely stupid things, he could simply not have his PC solve the complicated Puzzle of the High Wizard and such.

Well, some DM's have a problem if a player does not want to role play. And if a player just wants to free form it and ignore the character sheet, then they might be playing the wrong game. In D&D the numbers matter.

[Jeff the Green]

In D&D the numbers matter.

But not in the way people (possibly including you) think. Very little is actually controlled by Intelligence, what is isn't that noticeable in-game without specific class features using it, and the only other thing specifically called out is "how well your character learns and reasons." It doesn't affect your ability to form coherent sentences, your ability to know things outside the Knowledge areas (e.g. how to make the perfect souffle), whether you're good at riddles, whether you prefer simple solutions or complex ones, or almost any other aspect of roleplaying. The only stat that's likely to be "incorrectly" roleplayed is Charisma: roleplaying high or low Strength/Dexterity/Constitution tends to come down to skill or ability checks or saves, Intelligence is highly circumscribed, and many of Wisdom's functions are vague and/or easily (if not efficiently) outsourced to Intelligence. And the only reason Charisma can be "incorrectly" roleplayed is that some people have a tendency to ignore social skill checks and let player Charisma have a significant effect on whether the character can successfully lie to/convince/threaten an NPC.

[goto124]

'in this game, certain stats are required for certain RP'.
I3.5ed D&D isn't the sort of game where I'd expect to see something like that done well, for the various reasons already stated in this thread

I must've missed it while reading the thread... could someone kindly point it out please? Apologies for my low int/wis.

[jedipotter]

But not in the way people (possibly including you) think.

Well, just about any player I have ever met has thought that ''high intelligence in a character means they should get something above and beyond normal game play''. For example they might suggest that their special smart character can ''make an intelligence check to know something or understand a puzzle''. And many DM's agree with this too. So if it's true you can play a character smarter then the player...then you can also play a character dumber then the player.


I'm not a ''roll on table E1 for your Intelligence Quirk'' type DM. I'd much rather the players take the numbers as a rough guideline and make a unique personality.

[NichG]

I must've missed it while reading the thread... could someone kindly point it out please? Apologies for my low int/wis.

- Because low values tend not to be particularly low, whereas high values become very common. A high starting stat is a 20. A low starting stat is a 6. So you have -2 modifier versus +5 modifier, with +0 being 'average'. So the game itself is geared towards 'what you are good at is the thing that distinguishes your character' rather than 'what you are bad at is the thing that distinguishes your character'. That gap only grows at higher levels, where you might be comparing the same 6 against a 34.

- Because other factors are mechanically much more important than stats, so 'your stats determine your RP' is inconsistent. At 1st level, you can close a gap of 8 stat points in skills by spending skill points. At 2nd level, in the extreme case of Diplomacy, you can close a gap of 22 stat points (5 ranks + 6 from synergies). So you can make a 2nd level trained diplomat with 6 Cha who is as good at diplomacy as someone with no training but who has a supernaturally high Charisma of 28. At high levels this gap again grows. It'd make more sense to insist that players 'RP a low level character as bumbling and incompetent' than to 'RP a low Int character as bumbling and incompetent'.

- Related to this, the game is based on zero-to-hero taken to extremes. There is going to be so much change in what your character can do as you level that using the character's numbers for characterization is just really problematic (e.g. 'if you claim that you must RP an Int 18, Lv1 Wizard as a genius, what do you do for an encore when he's Lv20 and has not only 34 Int but also skills, training, and life experiences?')

- Because the mental stats are broad and ill-defined in D&D. Wisdom applies to how good your vision is, but also how strong-willed you are, and so on. In D&D, this is confused further by the fact that there are many many sources of bonuses and penalties to these things, which suggest by their nature that they're just very different things - e.g. things that make you ugly lower your Charisma, but if Charisma is force of personality than how does that matter? So it's questionable to treat stats as being 'definitive' of any one particular aspect of RP. Instead, they're abstractions that sum over a large number of possible contributions - you could have high Cha because you're breathtaking to behold, or because you have a strong sense of self and other people feel comforted by that strength, or because you have a chameleon-like instinct for saying what people want to hear, or ... Because of that, going in reverse: saying 'because you have a low Cha, you must be X' doesn't make sense.

[LudicSavant]

NichG is on the right track. Think of it this way:

One character has +18 Bluff, +26 Diplomacy, +30 Intimidate, +12 Handle Animal
Another has +5 Bluff, +5 Diplomacy, +6 Intimidate, +5 Handle Animal

Which one is the people person?

The first one has 6 Charisma, the second has 20. If this changes your answer, you're not "roleplaying better," you're just metagaming (e.g. basing in-game evaluations on information that doesn't manifest within the game world itself). You know, like http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif

This applies to other attributes as well. You could have someone with 2 dexterity who could perform dazzling acrobatic feats. You could have someone with 2 Constitution who can literally bathe every day in Black Lotus Extract without a chance of failing a fortitude save and can take a boulder to the face. And so forth.

The secret here is understanding a concept called flavor transparency: You can flavor things however you like, so long as it's line with the final in-game effects. It is the capability itself that matters, not the behind-the-scenes labels given to the component parts of that capability. You can justify the capability however you like. If the justification is interesting and consistent with the capability, then you are roleplaying better.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, just about any player I have ever met has thought that ''high intelligence in a character means they should get something above and beyond normal game play''. For example they might suggest that their special smart character can ''make an intelligence check to know something or understand a puzzle''. And many DM's agree with this too. So if it's true you can play a character smarter then the player...then you can also play a character dumber then the player.

Which is mechanics, not roleplaying.

For example, my DM recently gave us a riddle that he was fairly certain we hadn't heard of but which I actually had. I could have just had my Int 21 character figure it out, but for character and story reasons I had him instead have heard it before. I probably would have done the same had I gotten the answer with an Intelligence check because it made more IC sense. Similarly, the difference on an Intelligence check of someone with Int 8 and Int 16 isn't all that big, and you could roleplay a success for a low-Intelligence character as either a flash of somewhat uncharacteristic insight or just having known something from previous encounters.

[goto124]

So stats should be at most a rough suggestion on how to RP your character, because there are so many variables and there's a lot of ambiguity over how it works out RP-wise.

If you like to RP the low Int, go ahead. If you don't, and just want to be normal, that's fine too.

[Jeff the Green]

So stats should be at most a rough suggestion on how to RP your character, because there are so many variables and there's a lot of ambiguity over how it works out RP-wise.

If you like to RP the low Int, go ahead. If you don't, and just want to be normal, that's fine too.

I'd say that's mostly the case. The exception is where the mechanical function of the abilities actually affects what you're trying to roleplay. It's difficult for a Strength 8 character to be a famous weight-lifter, and you're unlikely to see a renowned philosopher of religion who can't even afford full ranks in Knowledge (religion) and (the planes).

[jedipotter]

NichG is on the right track. Think of it this way:

One character has +18 Bluff, +26 Diplomacy, +30 Intimidate, +12 Handle Animal
Another has +5 Bluff, +5 Diplomacy, +6 Intimidate, +5 Handle Animal

Which one is the people person?

The first one has 6 Charisma, the second has 20. If this changes your answer, you're not "roleplaying better," you're just metagaming (e.g. basing in-game evaluations on information that doesn't manifest within the game world itself).

So it's not metagaming to look at the +26 Diplomacy, but it is metagaming to look at the Charisma 6?




This applies to other attributes as well. You could have someone with 2 dexterity who could perform dazzling acrobatic feats. You could have someone with 2 Constitution who can literally bathe every day in Black Lotus Extract without a chance of failing a fortitude save and can take a boulder to the face. And so forth.


How? The chances of a dexterity two, with a -4, doing anything dazzling is not too likely. Sure they can ''roll a 20'', but that will be rare. And a 2 Con is going to have low hit points...



The secret here is understanding a concept called flavor transparency: You can flavor things however you like, so long as it's line with the final in-game effects. It is the capability itself that matters, not the behind-the-scenes labels given to the component parts of that capability. You can justify the capability however you like. If the justification is interesting and consistent with the capability, then you are roleplaying better.

But are you not just saying ''do whatever you want and ignore the character on the paper in front of you''? So a player can just make a totally random character personality.

I see abilities, the same way I see anything about a character: It's something to build a character from. The same way if a player has ''fighter'' as a class, they will have a background like ''was trained by the war master Kane'' and will have an ''army like personality''. Your saying nothing needs to make sense, like ''My character read books everyday for 20 years and woke up one day and was a fighter''. The same way a wizard has to learn spell casting somehow, you can't just ''pop'' and do it.

[atemu1234]

I'd say that's mostly the case. The exception is where the mechanical function of the abilities actually affects what you're trying to roleplay. It's difficult for a Strength 8 character to be a famous weight-lifter, and you're unlikely to see a renowned philosopher of religion who can't even afford full ranks in Knowledge (religion) and (the planes).

Note that the minimum you can receive at each level is 1, and a philosopher of religion would be able to get full ranks.

[Jeff the Green]

Note that the minimum you can receive at each level is 1, and a philosopher of religion would be able to get full ranks.

I was assuming you would also need ranks in Knowledge (the planes), since that covers things like alignment, where the gods live, what their servants are like, etc.

[atemu1234]

I was assuming you would also need ranks in Knowledge (the planes), since that covers things like alignment, where the gods live, what their servants are like, etc.

Just because you don't get the full ranks doesn't make you horrible- even half ranks or dipping works for untrained checks like Knowledge checks. Not to mention that there are other philosophers- who have written this stuff down, for you to ponder.

We're not arguing that they 8 Int is ingenious, just that it's not braindead.

[LudicSavant]

So it's not metagaming to look at the +26 Diplomacy, but it is metagaming to look at the Charisma 6? It is not metagaming to recognize that you can consistently accomplish incredible feats of Diplomacy if you are playing a character who has a +26 modifier to Diplomacy any more than it's metagaming for me to know that I can easily construct a computer from spare parts in real life. It is metagaming (and just plain inaccurate besides) to look at the Charisma 6 and then decide that the person who is capable of consistently accomplishing incredible feats of Diplomacy is just plain terrible at talking to people.

You could, in character, easily test how good a person is at any given skill. The same cannot be said about attributes (with the exception of strength and carrying capacity). The closest thing you could get to that is ability damage, which is abstracted in the same way HP is, and can represent all kinds of things (for instance, many Cha-draining spells aren't described as making you uglier, but there are people who will insist that having a lower Charisma makes you uglier. It doesn't make any sense).

Here's the difference in a nutshell: You would never have known that the person had a -1 to dexterity unless you actually read their sheet, but you would have known that they were great at Balancing because they were dancing on a tightrope last session.


How? The chances of a dexterity two, with a -4, doing anything dazzling is not too likely. Add -4 to a +24 Tumble score and you get +20, which means you can consistently do dazzling acrobatics.

This is what I'm talking about. You are not looking at the whole picture. You are not looking at what the character actually does in game. You don't seem to care that the character in question might have a +15 to resist tripping and be able to balance on a tightrope with one hand... you're content to say that they perpetually trip over themselves because you looked at that -4 in a complete vacuum.


And a 2 Con is going to have low hit points... Compared to who? An otherwise identical character with a higher stat? An ogre has 29 hit points. I can totally make a character who can take more hits than an ogre despite having 2 constitution. Again, you're making your comparisons in a vacuum, independent of the actual context of the in-game world. Ability checks, saves, skill checks... all of these things are not solely determined by a single attribute.


But are you not just saying ''do whatever you want and ignore the character on the paper in front of you''? So a player can just make a totally random character personality. No, that's not even remotely close to what I said. I said that the part of the character on paper that matters is the end result capabilities, rather than the labels of the component parts of those capabilities. For instance, what's more important... that your character sheet says "Paladin" in the class line, or that you can smite evil, summon a mount, be a badass melee fighter, heal the sick and wounded with a touch, detect evil at will, and uphold a high standard of ethics? Because I can totally do all of those things while not being a member of the Paladin class (or make a member of the Paladin class who doesn't do all of those things).

[RoboEmperor]

Skill points mean your character is compensating for lack of talent. 18cha means you're naturally good at diplomacy, way better than an 8 CHA, but if the 8CHA trains his diplomacy like crazy and the 18CHA ignores it, well, it's the rabbit and the turtle race scenario.

@LudicSavant
I can make a 1con character immune to all forms of damage with epic spellcasting. So... using magic items/spells to compensate for your lack of CON doesn't mean you're healthy. You're fragile as f*ck but you compensated with other stuff. You'd be no different than Mr.House from New Vegas, if you played that game.

I admit my mistake on intelligence. 8 int means you're slow, and you learn very slowly. If you have learned the thing before, then 8 int shouldn't matter. So an 8 int can be a king's adviser, except he can't learn very well so if anything is new to him, he needs to spend a long while to get it where as an 18 int character gets it instantly.

[Jeff the Green]

Just because you don't get the full ranks doesn't make you horrible- even half ranks or dipping works for untrained checks like Knowledge checks. Not to mention that there are other philosophers- who have written this stuff down, for you to ponder.

We're not arguing that they 8 Int is ingenious, just that it's not braindead.

Oh, of course not. And there's no reason to suggest he couldn't become a competent philosopher—but they're unlikely to be renowned for it.


I admit my mistake on intelligence. 8 int means you're slow, and you learn very slowly. If you have learned the thing before, then 8 int shouldn't matter. So an 8 int can be a king's adviser, except he can't learn very well so if anything is new to him, he needs to spend a long while to get it where as an 18 int character gets it instantly.


Let's put it this way: an 8 in 3d6 is somewhere between 17th and 25th percentile, meaning that he's smarter than 17-25% of people. This is not brilliant, but by no means does it require that they be unable to speak colloquial Common (i.e. Common as it is actually spoken, not "Common as misused by idiots") or even multiple languages (in many places in the world being bilingual is a minimum requirement for functioning in society), be unable to come up with sensible strategies, not know a lot about a particular subject, or to effectively lead. It's around an IQ of 87, which is two points below "average" IQ classification. We literally expect a larger difference between two tests of the same person than between "average" and that score. Heck, even a 6 is at the high end of "borderline impaired or delayed". You literally have to drop down to a 4 to get to what is generally accepted as having a significant disability, and even a 3 doesn't drop to "moderately impaired or delayed". (And there's a bright line between 2 and 3 such that the difference is categorical rather than merely quantitative, so you can't really go further. If you could, you'd need to drop to 1 for "moderately impaired or delayed".)


Intelligence 8 is. Not. Stupid.

There's a difference between Intelligence 8 and Intelligence 12; it's not big. The difference between Intelligence 8 and Intelligence 18 is larger, but mostly because of how freakishly smart the 18 is rather than how slow the 8 is.

[LudicSavant]

Skill points mean your character is compensating for lack of talent. 18cha means you're naturally good at diplomacy, way better than an 8 CHA, but if the 8CHA trains his diplomacy like crazy and the 18CHA ignores it, well, it's the rabbit and the turtle race scenario.

@LudicSavant
I can make a 1con character immune to all forms of damage with epic spellcasting. So... using magic items/spells to compensate for your lack of CON doesn't mean you're healthy. You're fragile as f*ck but you compensated with other stuff. You'd be no different than Mr.House from New Vegas, if you played that game.

I admit my mistake on intelligence. 8 int means you're slow, and you learn very slowly. If you have learned the thing before, then 8 int shouldn't matter. So an 8 int can be a king's adviser, except he can't learn very well so if anything is new to him, he needs to spend a long while to get it where as an 18 int character gets it instantly.

The disconnect with this kind of thinking is that you are not determining that you look like Mr. House from any information observed in the actual game world. You are determining that you look like Mr. House based on your preconceived notions of what a given label attached to a discrete mechanical component means independent of its actual measurable effect in-world.

Also, none of the examples I gave utilized spellcasting to compensate for a lack of an attribute, they all used things that are "always on" exactly like attributes themselves are. Utilizing spellcasting buffs would be easily distinguishable in-world from simply having a higher or lower attribute, for obvious reasons.

How are you reconciling a character being described as "Low Dex: You trip a lot, and stub your toe everywhere" with a character who has a +20 bonus to Tumble, +20 to Balance, a +15 Reflex save, various acrobatic skill tricks and feats, and a +15 bonus to resist combat maneuvers such as Trip? Getting this character to trip up in-world is actually really hard.

I'll tell you how you're doing it. You're not actually looking at the in-game character's actions. You're looking at a single number on their sheet in a vacuum, disconnected from its actual impact on the results of actions, and attaching implications to that number that it does not actually possess.

This kind of thinking is the exact same kind of issue as someone saying that you can't represent a character as a samurai without actually having a class with Samurai in the name, even if you are an expert with a katana, are part of a samurai caste, follow the code of Bushido, etc etc. The name of your class doesn't matter; the fact that you can do the things that a samurai does matters. Likewise, it's ridiculous to demand that someone who has a +20 bonus to Balance is a complete klutz simply because a -1 from dexterity factored into that +20. You would never have known that the person had a -1 to dexterity unless you actually read their sheet, but you would have known that they were great at balancing because they were dancing on a tightrope last session.

[Sheogoroth]

Oh definitely, you should encourage and possibly require it when DMing.

It forces the min-maxers to suffer from the unintended consequences of their 7 Cha, 7 Str, 18 Int Wizards.
I basically consider that guy as having Muscular Dystrophy and Asperger's syndrome and pit heavy doors and conversations against him.

[jedipotter]

You could, in character, easily test how good a person is at any given skill. The same cannot be said about attributes (with the exception of strength and carrying capacity).

I see the problem. You don't like the limit.

My Way: When someone is born, they have a bunch of pre set things as to how much anything will be. And only major environmental effects can change that. So when born, a person ''rolls their scores''. If they roll an 8 for intelligence, then that is as high as they will naturally ever get. It's the exact same way a person will be set to be exactly five feet tall, and nothing that person does mundanely can change that.

The Other Way: A person has a score of ten automatically..with no limit. And if they want to, they only need click their heels and they can be an 18 in one or more scores. Anyone can be anything. Everyone is special. And the only reason everyone does not have all 18's is...er, well some vague reason. And i guess you'd say a person can ''think'' themselves to a different height....though it does not work that way?

And this is why everything has try outs. You gather a bunch of people together and see what they are good at. Though it only works for my view, as some people will fail and some will make it. The other way of ''everyone is and/or can be a special 18'' does not work out so well.

So my way, a person needs to make a DC 15 to do something. They might have some natural ability(high score or a feat) or they might have lots of hard work and training(skill points) or they might have a little of both. And they can make that DC.

The other way of ''everyone can be a special 18'' kind of fizzles out as if everyone was all 18's you'd have a very bland game.

[LudicSavant]

So my way, a person needs to make a DC 15 to do something. They might have some natural ability(high score or a feat) or they might have lots of hard work and training(skill points) or they might have a little of both. And they can make that DC.

Can you not see that, right there, you are making determinations about character flavor that are not actually based on any observed in-world actions? That the method by which you determined that their character flavor is "did lots of training and hard work" or "had natural talent" was by looking at the character sheet rather than any actual in-game result derived from that sheet? Nevermind the whole bit that you totally can raise your strength in real life through hard work and training (but you claim is not a suitable explanation for a strength score).

This line of thinking is equally problematic to "They might have begun their training as a samurai (Samurai class) or taken on the role later due to their prowess in related fields (Master Samurai prestige class) or they might have a little of both (multiclass)."

The flavor you are attaching to those mechanical terms does not need to be attached to those mechanical terms, for the same reason that it's okay to describe what is mechanically a bastard sword as a katana if you so choose. The part that is observable in-game is that it's a slashing weapon that you can wield in one or two hands and power attack with. Both a katana and a bastard sword justify that in-game effect, so you can describe it as either, and it wouldn't cause any roleplaying inconsistencies whatsoever in-game. That's flavor transparency.

[Flickerdart]

I see the problem. You don't like the limit.
So what, you forbid characters with 6 Intelligence from taking Knowledge ranks?

[goto124]

Oh definitely, you should encourage and possibly require it when DMing.

It forces the min-maxers to suffer from the unintended consequences of their 7 Cha, 7 Str, 18 Int Wizards.
I basically consider that guy as having Muscular Dystrophy and Asperger's syndrome and pit heavy doors and conversations against him.

So you want to avoid min-maxers by punishing them? Why not have a chat with the player before the game starts, and explain that his build will make the game too easy and unfun? That way, the player knows his choices beforehand- have a more balanced character, deal with the special consequences, or not play the game- instead of running into trouble midway with no warning (way to create friction between the DM and the player).

[jedipotter]

So what, you forbid characters with 6 Intelligence from taking Knowledge ranks?

Nah, they can take the ranks. Though they would get more strange information too....and it won't be 100% true(though in fairness even the Int 30 people with ranks of +100 don't get 100% true...but they will at least know it)

But I'd ask them to not write anything down during the game.

Normally I really, really harp on players to write things down like NPC names and town names and such. I don't allow player to ''um, just go to that guy'', for example. If they can't remember the Alchemists name was Dornt, then they are lost. And that is why I try and get them to write things down.

But few do....and it is there loss. They meet NPC who says ''I do X for you'', then 2 real life months later they don't remember the guys name or where he lives. And I say...well it would have taken 10 seconds to write down...

[RoboEmperor]

How are you reconciling a character being described as "Low Dex: You trip a lot, and stub your toe everywhere" with a character who has a +20 bonus to Tumble, +20 to Balance, a +15 Reflex save, various acrobatic skill tricks and feats, and a +15 bonus to resist combat maneuvers such as Trip? Getting this character to trip up in-world is actually really hard.

Isn't it obvious? Low dex characters I'm talking about has 0 balance and tumble. In fact they have -1 balance and tumble. Did I say the low dex character have 20 tumble? Do characters who dump dex usually max tumble? Do characters who don't dump dex even bother with tumble and balance? I thought it was obvious I was talking about a character who dumped dex and didn't get any skill points in tumble and balance so I didn't bother clarifying it to the letter.

{scrubbed}

[Renen]

Heres a simple point:
Separate crunch from fluff.

If a player wants to drop some scores, dont force them to RP a certain way.
If a player wants to have a certain scores high, dont force them to RP a certain way either. Maybe I WANT to RP a stupid wizard that still can pull off 9th level spells somehow? (High int, but played like a dummy)

And anyways, whats the PROBLEM with having people at 1 1 1 for mental stats? Because you know what those 1's mean? That means the person isnt playing a caster. And if they arent a caster, and there ARE casters around, they need all the help they can get to stay relevant.

P.S. I REALLY loved when a non-caster (all 1's for mental stats) was mentioned as an example of power gaming. Made me LOL.

[RoboEmperor]

Heres a simple point:
Separate crunch from fluff.

If a player wants to drop some scores, dont force them to RP a certain way.
If a player wants to have a certain scores high, dont force them to RP a certain way either. Maybe I WANT to RP a stupid wizard that still can pull off 9th level spells somehow? (High int, but played like a dummy)

And anyways, whats the PROBLEM with having people at 1 1 1 for mental stats? Because you know what those 1's mean? That means the person isnt playing a caster. And if they arent a caster, and there ARE casters around, they need all the help they can get to stay relevant.

P.S. I REALLY loved when a non-caster (all 1's for mental stats) was mentioned as an example of power gaming. Made me LOL.

I admitted I was at fault with my conversation with my friend. I already apologized, and it was a while ago.

All 1's for mental stats is power gaming. It may not be the most optimal, but you're power gaming. Not that power gaming is bad, I optimize pretty heavily myself, but min/maxing for whatever reason is power gaming. Unless you intentionally want a challenging character with a specific weakness, then it's not power gaming. But that's off topic, and a lot of people might view it differently and it doesn't really matter. It's my definition, so if it doesn't agree with your definition, that's fine.

[Renen]

Well... it might be power gaming to a degree... but I just think that a player shouldnt be forced to play something they dont want. Heck, look at some movie/book/anime heroes. There are some who's physical feats can be replicated only by min maxing. But because someone wants to play a guy with "the strength of Hercules", he wont have the points for the mental stats. Sh
ould he abandon a neat idea?

Or think of this: Say I wanna play a great military commander. The campaign is medium to high OP, meaning doing "whatever" is bad for your lifespan. But how can I make a successful warrior, of I gotta spend 1/2 my points to show that he is relatively charismatic, and is a good tactician? Some great military commanders would require about a 14 in Cha and Int, to show their ability to lead and their clever tactics.

Your take on this is valid, but only in low OP games. Ones where encounters are always CR appropriate, and death is only there if you REALLLY mess up.

In mid to high OP games your rule would make mundanes cry, while the mages would still walk over everybody, because no one RPs a "strongman" wizard anyways (well they might, but its rare)

TL; DR: Making people RP low stats is bad, because it stops certain character ideas. It also makes for alot more cookie cutter characters like "big dumb fighter" and "weakling wizard"

[RoboEmperor]

Well... it might be power gaming to a degree... but I just think that a player shouldnt be forced to play something they dont want. Heck, look at some movie/book/anime heroes. There are some who's physical feats can be replicated only by min maxing. But because someone wants to play a guy with "the strength of Hercules", he wont have the points for the mental stats. Should he abandon a neat idea?

Or think of this: Say I wanna play a great military commander. The campaign is medium to high OP, meaning doing "whatever" is bad for your lifespan. But how can I make a successful warrior, of I gotta spend 1/2 my points to show that he is relatively charismatic, and is a good tactician? Some great military commanders would require about a 14 in Cha and Int, to show their ability to lead and their clever tactics.

Your take on this is valid, but only in low OP games. Ones where encounters are always CR appropriate, and death is only there if you REALLLY mess up.

In mid to high OP games your rule would make mundanes cry, while the mages would still walk over everybody, because no one RPs a "strongman" wizard anyways (well they might, but its rare)

Again, I admit I was at fault. It depends on the DM. My DM doesn't care so it was wrong of me to bring up the issue, but if I was DMing, I'd force the 8cha guy to be a killing machine, but not a leader of men. Samething with an 8 CHA wizard. Bards and sorcerers are now more appealing if you want to lead something. But again, depends on the DM, and I was wrong.

[Renen]

Just wondering (and I no longer trying to be mean, and just curious): why WOULD you make 8cha fighter to be a killer and not a leader?
I see a few reasons, but I am honestly interested in your reason:
1) You do it to punish a min maxer
2) You do it because you want to stick to raw, even at expense of player choice/originality
3) Other

And I do see where you are coming from, but I wonder. In your campaigns, are bards and sorcerers really that prelevant as army leaders? And do any actual "mundanes" that are leaders fight well (due to the need for high Cha)?


And again, if anything came out mean I am just trying to get the perspective.

[Milo v3]

Just wondering (and I no longer trying to be mean, and just curious): why WOULD you make 8cha fighter to be a killer and not a leader?

And again, if anything came out mean I am just trying to get the perspective.

Because low charisma = low charisma? It's a rather standard concept in my experience. :smallconfused:

[Renen]

Because low charisma = low charisma? It's a rather standard concept in my experience. :smallconfused:

Ok. But say you wanna emulate a great historical war commander. I suck at history... but lets imagine Alexander the great or something... did he have good combat skills? Anyways, im sure there were a few throughout history that were great leaders AND amazing warriors.

How would you make them in DnD, if you either focus on being one or the other? Or do you have a "great hero" who is worse leader than his personal bard, and worse fighter than one of his thugs? Eh... I wouldnt play that.

[Milo v3]

Ok. But say you wanna emulate a great historical war commander. I suck at history... but lets imagine Alexander the great or something... did he have good combat skills? Anyways, im sure there were a few throughout history that were great leaders AND amazing warriors.

How would you make them in DnD, if you either focus on being one or the other? Or do you have a "great hero" who is worse leader than his personal bard, and worse fighter than one of his thugs? Eh... I wouldnt play that.

Play a warlord? Amazing martial plus bonuses from having a decent charisma score.
Could just be a fighter with decent charisma. It's not like it is impossible to have a fighter with mental ability scores....
Could be a bard with perform (Oratory).
Could be a marshal.
Could be a skald.
Or he could just be a fighter with the leadership feat and no diplomatic skills and crap charisma, because you don't rule through charisma. Not every ruler was actually charismatic.

[RoboEmperor]

Just wondering (and I no longer trying to be mean, and just curious): why WOULD you make 8cha fighter to be a killer and not a leader?
I see a few reasons, but I am honestly interested in your reason:
1) You do it to punish a min maxer
2) You do it because you want to stick to raw, even at expense of player choice/originality
3) Other

And I do see where you are coming from, but I wonder. In your campaigns, are bards and sorcerers really that prelevant as army leaders? And do any actual "mundanes" that are leaders fight well (due to the need for high Cha)?


And again, if anything came out mean I am just trying to get the perspective.



It's actually mostly 1) and 3).

When I make a character, I do optimize a little, but I also design it based on roleplaying. For example, with a wizard, I max 18 int to get the highest spell DC, but then I dump dex, get lower con, so I can get a higher CHA. I wanted to play a witty playful charismatic wizard who gets other people to do his manual labor for him. I intentionally got low WIS. He can manipulate/fool other people easily, but gets duped just as easily as well. It was a very humorous amusing game.

Now, if the guy next to me is playing the standard 14con, 18int, rest in dex wizard solely for the stats and high initiative, gets a hummingbird familiar, and grabs abrupt jaunt, it does kind of tick me off. So because you discarded all RP stats so you can power game like a boss, then you gotta pay the price. You're a powerful killing machine, but you can't get everyone to like you. Only fear you, but if this guy is inspiring the masses to join his cause, acting like batman, or saying he's a beautiful charming noble who seduces every women in the court, I'm gonna say no, you need to invest in charisma, or grab a ton of cha boosting equipment to compensate, which he doesn't because he spends his entire WBL on optimal gear.

Same thing with WIS. Low WIS = easily fooled into ambushes and very prone to just losing all your possessions to survive getting caught off-guard unless you specifically prepared a plan for that, like a secretly observing demon who stays in ethereal 24/7 behind you just so he could bail you out in those situations. If a 8wis wizard is saying he noticed the guard's attitude and expected an ambush so he prepared for it fully, turning the ambush on the ambushers and getting their possessions, then I'm gonna have a problem.

I guess it's not fun for me if I play with a god-moder who scraps all RP for optimization.

The fighter is collateral damage, and my table isn't high-op. It's mid op-ish, as in you can get away with almost any character as long as you play right.

In your fighter case, if the game is that high op and you can't afford to waste even 1 point in charisma, then I understand and won't enforce those things, especially if losing the initiative = death for the wizard. But in a mid-op game where you can get away with a character who gets 12-14 on all stats and instead play a min/max mega optimizer, I want to penalize you for not getting RP stats, or not creating a character to fit the RP you want to play. Hell, I had wizards getting 14 str just so he could have a six pack.

This usually isn't a problem, as most of the power gaming wizards I played with enjoyed being a misanthrope in game, who gets easily duped and exacts terrible and horrific vengeance, and those who want to be beautiful/playful roll sorcerers and bards.

[Renen]

I see your point. But (and maybe thats just the type of pwraon I am) of I was in a game where my wizard was not liked by people and everyone tried to push him around due to his low charisma for example, then my wizard would do some very unorthodox things to make people like him, if they liked it or not. If you know what I mean. Point being that sure, punishing min maxers is something to consider, but you gotta remember that if you are making a min-maxer sad, they might over compensate and become a tippyverse wizard. And we all know how bad arms races are.

[Marlowe]

Ok. But say you wanna emulate a great historical war commander. I suck at history... but lets imagine Alexander the great or something... did he have good combat skills?


Well, if you believe classical historians then yeah, he wasn't too shabby. Certainly picked up a nice collection of wounds in various battles.

Before anyone asks and in case anyone cares; Julius Caesar is only recorded as fighting in melee on one occasion that I recall. Napoleon never seems to have been noted for his athleticism beyond one famous charge early in his career, Frederick The Great appears to have had pretty poor Charisma, and Charles XII of Sweden, while noted as intellectually formidable, charismatic, and personally dangerous seems to have had a Wisdom score that would have disgraced a Mecklenburg salted herring.

[LudicSavant]

Because low charisma = low charisma? It's a rather standard concept in my experience. :smallconfused:

You could just as easily say "Because samurai = Samurai? It's a rather standard concept in my experience." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif) I believe that the statements commit the same oversight, and am prepared to explain why.

How about a thought experiment? What if I, as a game designer, switched the labels around? What if Charisma had Strength's function, Intelligence had Constitution's, and so forth? So, Charisma would give you a boost to attack rolls and carrying capacity. Would it still be equally valid to say that you have to have high Charisma in order to do things a charismatic person does? Of course not, because it's not the fact that it's labelled "Charisma" that matters. It's what the mechanics empower the character to do that defines the limitations of their flavor. You couldn't rightfully flavor someone as the most charismatic man in the world if they sucked at persuading people. You also couldn't rightfully flavor someone as the least charismatic man in the world when they can make someone fanatically loyal just by talking to them for a minute, or make some of the world's wisest beings buy into absurd lies, and so on and so forth.

What defines a person as charismatic? Is it a label on a sheet, or is it an actual capability your character has, such as being able to befriend the warlike king or con the conman? If you had 14 Charisma, you're not actually gaining a great deal of ability to manipulate people. In fact, the difference between 8 and 10 cha is barely even noticeable in game. The difference between fully investing in Diplomacy or Bluff is very noticeable in game. And yet, there was just a guy in here arguing that if you think the person with the full investment in social skills could be described as charismatic even when they have an 8 Charisma, you're a dirty badwrong meanie munchkin minmaxxer.

It's not that making people RP low stats is bad. If you have an abysmal bluff and can never convince anyone of anything, you should roleplay that. It's that attributes aren't a final modifier; they don't actually manifest directly in in-game situations. Having a low charisma doesn't actually necessarily mean you're bad at social skills, and there's no reason to assume that a character is bad at social skills just because they have a low Charisma score.

You know what makes your character a great warrior leader? It's not having an extra +1 or +2 to Charisma. It's having things like full social skill investment, Inspire Courage (using rhetoric as your performance skill, even), white raven maneuvers, relevant knowledge skills, having a network of contacts... All of these things and more do far more to model your character as a great leader than moving around a + or -1. By insisting that all of these and other factors are irrelevant in the face of a relatively minor bonus or penalty, I feel that some players are severely limiting their ability to effectively model characters.

All that I am saying is something very simple: The name of the mechanic doesn't matter. The only things that really matter from your character sheet are the things that directly manifest in-world. All of the words on the character sheet would have exactly as much value if I hid them behind an auto-calculating UI.

___

To put it another way... hmmm...

The purpose of mechanics, from a roleplaying perspective, is to provide a functional model of a character via defining what they can or, equally importantly, cannot do in the game world in line with their characterization. If the mechanics are doing that, they are fulfilling their optimal purpose for roleplaying.

There are two kinds of fluff attached to most abilities that a designer will write up for an RPG. There's inherent flavor (e.g. flavor directly connected to what the mechanic does; you can't remove this flavor without changing what the ability does) and added flavor (e.g. stuff that you can totally just replace without really affecting the way the system works). So, for instance, a bastard sword has inherent flavor in the form of being a weapon that can be used in one or two hands, is suitable for power attacking, and that deals slashing damage and weighs however much. It has added flavor of looking roughly like this: http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/SH2250-1000.jpg . You can easily change the added flavor to be whatever you like, as long as it's something that fits the inherent flavor (so, for instance, it would be weird if you said the Bastard Sword was really a quarterstaff, since its inherent flavor doesn't seem to be compatible with modelling how a quarterstaff would work in the game world). The devs actually give an example of this when they suggest that you can change the Bastard Sword's added flavor so that it looks roughly like this: http://www.coldsteel.com/images/products/88K_m.jpg

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of the things that people associate with attributes aren't really inherent flavor... and by assuming it is, one is limiting the kind of concepts they can model, just as surely as they would be doing so by saying that it would be unacceptable to roleplay that a Bastard Sword's stats really represent a Katana, or that a Monk/Paladin can really represent a samurai.

[Milo v3]

You could just as easily say "Because samurai = Samurai? It's a rather standard concept in my experience." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif) I believe that the statements commit the same oversight, and am prepared to explain why.
One is a fundamental attribute of your character (ability scores), the other is a mechanical chassis with a name associated.


How about a thought experiment? What if I, as a game designer, switched the labels around? What if Charisma had Strength's function, Intelligence had Constitution's, and so forth. So Charisma would give you a boost to attack rolls and carrying capacity. Would it still be equally valid to say that you have to have high Charisma in order to do things a charismatic person does? Of course not, because it's not the fact that it's labelled "Charisma" that matters. It's what the mechanics empower the character to do that defines the limitations of their flavor. You couldn't rightfully flavor someone as the most charismatic man in the world if they sucked at persuading people.
The name of the thing is irrelevant, the fact is that the charisma score does play a factor in how charismatic the character is because it affects the charisma based skills and interacts with charmed creatures, etc. If you want a character who is charismatic then you shouldn't have mechanics that give you a penalty to everything related to charisma. If your ranks in skills allow you to be successfully intimidating without charisma, that means you can still be intimidating, but you might suck at being a charming guy because you have a cha of 1 and you haven't put a single rank in diplomacy.

[LudicSavant]

One is a fundamental attribute of your character (ability scores), the other is a mechanical chassis with a name associated. They are, quite literally, both sets of mechanical rules with names associated.



The name of the thing is irrelevant, the fact is that the charisma score does play a factor in how charismatic the character is because it affects the charisma based skills and interacts with charmed creatures, etc. If you want a character who is charismatic then you shouldn't have mechanics that give you a penalty to everything related to charisma. If your ranks in skills allow you to be successfully intimidating without charisma, that means you can still be intimidating, but you might suck at being a charming guy because you have a cha of 1 and you haven't put a single rank in diplomacy.

It factors, but it's not determinant. It is, as a matter of fact, possible to create a character with a low Charisma stat who is mechanically more capable in every social situation than a character with a higher Charisma stat. Therefore, suggesting that a character with 8 charisma be roleplayed as less socially adept than a character with 10 charisma regardless of all other factors is not very sensible.

[Milo v3]

They are, quite literally, both sets of mechanical rules with names associated.

Except charisma ability score affects how mechanically affective you are at being charismatic. Samurai doesn't have an impact on how mechanically affective you are at being a samurai. That comparison is irrelevant.

[LudicSavant]

Except charisma ability score affects how mechanically affective you are at being charismatic.

It factors, but it's not determinant. It is, as a matter of fact, possible to create a character with a low Charisma stat who is mechanically more capable in every social situation than a character with a higher Charisma stat. Therefore, suggesting that a character with 8 charisma must be roleplayed as less socially adept than a character with 10 charisma regardless of all other factors is not very sensible.


Samurai doesn't have an impact on how mechanically affective you are at being a samurai. That comparison is irrelevant.

Sure it does. Just like Wizard helps you model a wizard character concept, or Rogue helps you model a rogue character concept. But I could also totally describe someone as a rogue using a Factotum or Scout or Expert or Beguiler or something.

Likewise, Charisma factors into your ability to be charismatic, but it is not the final result. The final result is your actual collection of capabilities to do charismatic things. Charisma influences this result, but is not this result, and in many cases it is not even a leading factor. The result is a combination of many factors, including charisma, skill ranks, feats, and so on and so forth.

In other words, I could model a charismatic leader concept via the mechanical means of pumping up their Charisma, or I could do so by any number of other mechanical means, which are equally valid solutions (and might even model the roleplay concept better).

[Milo v3]

{scrubbed}


Sure it does. Just like Wizard helps you model a wizard character concept, or Rogue helps you model a rogue character concept. But I could also totally describe someone as a rogue using a Factotum or Scout or Expert or Beguiler or something.
No it actually doesn't necessarily, especially not with samurai, since the definition is "a member of a powerful military caste in feudal Japan." Since japan doesn't exist it is merely a member from a powerful military caste. It is a faction, a wizard could be part of that faction, a rogue could be part of that faction, a paladin/monk could be part of that faction.

[LudicSavant]

{scrubbed} I do not see that statement in the posts I replied to. I see the mention of intimidate, but I did not see a clear agreement that you believed that skill points could make a character charismatic in the holistic sense.

The statement I was replying to was the one where you suggested that low charisma necessarily equals uncharismatic character (or at least, that is how I interpreted your statement). If you no longer (or never did) agree with that statement, we're on the same page.

[Milo v3]

Yes, but the statement I was addressing was the one where you said that low charisma = low charisma. Are you saying that you now disagree with that statement, and believe that a character with low charisma is not necessarily uncharismatic? Because then we're totally on the same page :)

You firstly have to take it into context of me saying that being a reply to "why WOULD you make 8cha fighter to be a killer and not a leader?". That text does not describe the character as possessing skill ranks with every social based skill. Just that he has crap charisma and is a fighter. With just that information, no, he isn't charismatic. Deal with it.

[RoboEmperor]

We all been saying an uncharismatic dolt can make it up by putting an ungodly amount of effort into their social skills to be "charismatic" (skill points).

Just like how a 1dex character can fix his tripping issues by investing in balance, a 18dex character doesn't need to do that, and can do other stuff like ride, which the 1 dex character can't, unless he also puts in an ungodly amount of effort to fix that.

But a 1cha character is an uncharismatic dolt. If he tries hard to fix that, then he's an uncharismatic dolt who tried hard to fix that.

And no, skills and feat don't fix his charisma issues. No amount of diplomacy will make you win charisma checks in planar binding and charm monster. He could be an uncharismatic dolt who is amazing at diplomacy, intimidate, or bluff, but he's still an uncharismatic dolt who can't force his personality/will onto demons to do his bidding. He needs to use spells to compensate.

[NichG]

I guess it's not fun for me if I play with a god-moder who scraps all RP for optimization.

The fighter is collateral damage, and my table isn't high-op. It's mid op-ish, as in you can get away with almost any character as long as you play right.

This is the problem right here. You're not actually addressing the cause of your discontent directly. Instead you're lashing out randomly in the hopes that you'll land a blow on your actual target, and in the process you're causing 'collateral damage'.

[Berenger]

INT->Can improve your ability to analyze data, so maybe if Einstein is 18, you can train a guy to 14-16int? Kids who fail a subject sent to a cram school who beats the living **** out of you for every mistake comeback and get perfect in that subject.

So beating is the answer! :smallamused: Adventurers can raise Knowledge (Geography) or Craft (Alchemy) after their dungeon crawl because the rusty goblin dagger to the bowels or the acid burns in the face hurt bad enough to tickle their brain cells in just the right way. That's sheer genius.

[RoboEmperor]

This is the problem right here. You're not actually addressing the cause of your discontent directly. Instead you're lashing out randomly in the hopes that you'll land a blow on your actual target, and in the process you're causing 'collateral damage'.

I wasn't interested in whether I was right or whether my fighter was right. I was more interested in if people roleplay their low ability scores and if they do, how they did it.

I came off needlessly defensive and strong for what is different from person to person, and I didn't even say it clearly as a lot of people thought of me as an elitist snob. Re-reading my posts, I even get confused due to the massive grammar errors.

Anyways, this thread got me to apologize to the guy. This thread was just a discussion, or was until I took things a little too personally.

One re-reading of what int represents in the d20srd definition said everything I said was wrong so... @_@. Stupid me. 8int fighter can contribute to battle plans. He just learns how to think strategically a lot slower.

[atemu1234]

So beating is the answer! :smallamused: Adventurers can raise Knowledge (Geography) or Craft (Alchemy) after their dungeon crawl because the rusty goblin dagger to the bowels or the acid burns in the face hurt bad enough to tickle their brain cells in just the right way. That's sheer genius.

"Please sir, May I have another quadratic equation?"

[Ssalarn]

{scrubbed}

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Yeah, I always try to roleplay low scores, but, well, I actually find it more difficult to roleplay extremely high mental scores. I mean, playing an 7 Int orc is doable, but trying to get in the mind of a 34 Int Psion is extremely difficult. I usually have no idea how to deal with things with an intellect that rivals Elder Brains.

Since I've been DMing to my group for more than 8 years, I actually get to roleplay lots and lots of different NPCs. Usually, when I stat them, I write some characteristics to help me make them appear a little bit more authentic, and low ability scores can actually help make a character very memorable. One of the most important NPCs they found is an old human hero of war, more than 70 years old, with terrible physical scores due to old age. He coughs a lot when he speaks, moves slowly, and never stands up for too long.

As for the PCs, something that's funny is that, since most of them rolled their ability scores, most of the characters have at least one low ability score. The druid has a 6 Charisma and high Wisdom (and a demonic mark which gives him penalty on Diplomacy checks), the cleric of Kord has 8 Cha and high Wis, and the knight in the group had a 20 Cha and 6 Wis. When the group was all together, they could work perfectly through social situations, with the high Wis characters counseling the knight during speeches and conversations (and for that he became known as a great perceptive general), but the knight without the other characters was easily fooled by anyone, and the Wis characters without the knight couldn't get sympathy from anything (actually, the cleric maybe could, but, being a servant of Kord, he believed speaking was never as useful as acting).

[jedipotter]

I think you're also underestimating how common "low" stats are. More than 1 in 4 people are 8 Int or less, and of course same with all stats (assuming 3d6 roll in each stat). So, take your high school class. Would you seriously try and argue more than a quarter of them were too dumb to complete high school, are mentally capable of nothing other than minimum-wage jobs? Or 16% are 7 or below, do you think one out of every six people you know have such lack of intelligence you'd call them mentally retarded?

I'd come right out and say at least a quarter of my high school class was dumb. And all of them that I still know of are working minimum wage jobs today. And one out of six mentally retarded might not be enough...

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, I always try to roleplay low scores, but, well, I actually find it more difficult to roleplay extremely high mental scores. I mean, playing an 7 Int orc is doable, but trying to get in the mind of a 34 Int Psion is extremely difficult. I usually have no idea how to deal with things with an intellect that rivals Elder Brains.
As someone who literally has access to the fruit of billions of man hours' worth of theorycrafting and experimentation with the game's mechanics, I think you could do it decent justice. I generally don't agree with Tippy but he has one thing right - a level 20 wizard is exactly as tricky and cunning as optimizers make them. Contingencies for contingencies? Shaping your entire life choices based on what you've deduced your future challenges will be like? That's extremely in-character for someone with absurd-level Intelligence.

The whole "nature vs nurture" argument is getting ridiculous, so I'll propose a compromise: let's agree to treat low-CHA individuals as uncharismatic and generally unpleasant in any situation that isn't covered by their skills. So if you can find any use for social presence that isn't negotiating, lying, intimidating, performing in any sort of public manner, persuading, influencing, or (apparently) swordfighting and hacking magic rocks, a low-CHA guy has to automatically be bad at it.

[icefractal]

I always play out low ability scores. However, people often exaggerate the hell out of how significant a score actually is. Like saying the Int 8 makes you a dumb-ass who can't use tactics. Int 8 isn't that low! You probably know a fair number of people IRL that have Int 8. But some people seem to think that "less than 10 = hugely incompetent".

Those description in the OP for example - those are good ... for a score of like 3-4. Not 8. IMO, it's got to get to 6-7 before someone's lack in a particular area becomes a noticeable part of their image. And even lower before it's a defining trait.

Also, regarding low Int and tactics. Wolves have Int 2. They use tactics. Take that "Int 8 guys can't use flanking" bull**** out of here and throw it in the trash.


Anyway, re: warriors and Charisma. IMO, if the PCs are supposed to be "the protagonists" and not "some guys who might die in the first chapter" (and both are legit ways to play), then Charisma shouldn't even be a stat, and it especially shouldn't be a stat some classes benefit from more than others.

Un-charismatic protagonists are just really rare. Being gruff doesn't make you un-charismatic, it just makes you a different variety of charismatic. An actually un-charismatic warrior would be some thug that the protagonists beat up to demonstrate their skills and is then forgotten.

So really, it should be "what type of charisma do you have" rather than "are you charismatic" as a chargen thing. May have low-Cha as a flaw you can take, with the explicit proviso - "this makes you the forgettable guy, not serious brooding guy, don't take it if you want that".

[lsfreak]

I'd come right out and say at least a quarter of my high school class was dumb. And all of them that I still know of are working minimum wage jobs today. And one out of six mentally retarded might not be enough...

There is a difference between "dumb" and "mental impaired such that graduation is literally beyond them." Your hyberbole does not help your case.

As for looking at raw graduation numbers, that isn't as relevant as you might think, because there's a LOT of reasons kids drop out that are not intelligence-related. It wouldn't surprise me if most were interpersonal problems, and taking a quick glance at things like this (http://www.dropoutprevention.org/statistics/quick-facts/why-students-drop-out) seem to show that, indeed, social problems are the cause at similar or higher rates than intelligence-related ones.

[NichG]

I wasn't interested in whether I was right or whether my fighter was right. I was more interested in if people roleplay their low ability scores and if they do, how they did it.

I came off needlessly defensive and strong for what is different from person to person, and I didn't even say it clearly as a lot of people thought of me as an elitist snob. Re-reading my posts, I even get confused due to the massive grammar errors.

Anyways, this thread got me to apologize to the guy. This thread was just a discussion, or was until I took things a little too personally.


I guess my point is, maybe there is still a solution to your discontent, but the way to approach it is to do something like play a T3-only game or use the various other things that help keep optimization from getting really out of control.

[Faily]

Always play out the ability scores, wether they are high or low.

It's called a Roleplaying Game, after all.

[Nyt]

{scrubbed}

[magicalmagicman]

{scrubbed}

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread closed for review.