"and Warriors need intelligence why?"

[Dean Fellithor]

I was DM'ing the other day and I had this really rude player who assumed that stats were each to a class (ie: Strenght= Fighter, Dexterity= Archer, Intelliugence=Wizard), so I told him the rules and how the system works.

He got up and left...stupid Newbie...

[Quietus]

Insulting players for having opinions, even if they seem a little ... narrow... is never a good idea. For what it's worth, in the vast majority of cases this is true - Melee guys need strength, archers need dex, wizards need int.

So what's your point?

[Fixer]

I always enjoyed playing across-class attributes. Like a fighter with a higher Intelligence than Strength. Or a wizard with a higher Wisdom than Intelligence.

Makes them seem a bit more odd.

[Dean Fellithor]

Insulting players for having opinions, even if they seem a little ... narrow... is never a good idea. For what it's worth, in the vast majority of cases this is true - Melee guys need strength, archers need dex, wizards need int.

So what's your point?


he assumed that each class ran on 1 stat and 1 stat only(ie: Fighter doesnt need Intelligence, Dexterity,Charisma, ect).

[Roog]

I was DM'ing the other day and I had this really rude player who assumed that stats were each to a class (ie: Strenght= Fighter, Dexterity= Archer, Intelliugence=Wizard), so I told him the rules and how the system works.

He got up and left...stupid Newbie...

What is this "Archer" class you speak of?

[Dean Fellithor]

What is this "Archer" class you speak of?

Archer/ranger. see it now?

[Quietus]

he assumed that each class ran on 1 stat and 1 stat only(ie: Fighter doesnt need Intelligence, Dexterity,Charisma, ect).

Awesome. Give him an 18 in that stat and 6 in all the others, then. See whether he enjoys playing it.

[Wolf_Shade]

Awesome. Give him an 18 in that stat and 6 in all the others, then. See whether he enjoys playing it.

I think the issue was the individual did not understand the game mechanics. They found out the level of complexity that existed with ability scores and classes, and likely left because they weren't after that much detail.

[Dean Fellithor]

Awesome. Give him an 18 in that stat and 6 in all the others, then. See whether he enjoys playing it.

but then he'd get all emotional about how his character is not as good as the other characters:

"HEY! how come all of them have 99 points to use on their skills when I only have 50!"
"Because you Didn't listen to the rules, Idiot!"

[BCOVertigo]

Awesome. Give him an 18 in that stat and 6 in all the others, then. See whether he enjoys playing it.

I think he already left, no need to beat him to death with his ignorance.

So....was there a question to go with this story or are we just laughing at the window licker? Also, please elaborate on 'rude' because I'm bored and would enjoy a good dnd horror story if one is to be had.

[Leon]

(ie: Strenght= Fighter, Dexterity= Archer,


Given the Array of feats Avalible Fighter = Archer

[Kurald Galain]

Awesome. Give him an 18 in that stat and 6 in all the others, then. See whether he enjoys playing it.

It would seem that if your character is a primary caster, the result is quite playable. Even a rogue would be feasible like this. Just avoid combat for your lack of hit points.

[Tengu]

But Warblades do need intelligence!

Wait. Fighter. Warblade's handicapped brother. Right.

Well, a fighter should have at least 13 intelligence anyway, so he gets access to all the sweet, useful feats. Same with dexterity.

[kjones]

It would seem that if your character is a druid, the result is quite playable. Even a rogue would be feasible like this. Just avoid combat for your lack of hit points.

Fixed that for you.:smalltongue:

[psychoticbarber]

It would seem that if your character is a primary caster, the result is quite playable. Even a druid would be feasible like this. Just avoid combat for your lack of hit points.

The druid doesn't even really have to avoid combat for that long. That's why my current campaign is Urban and Druids are..discouraged. I'd let you if you really anted it, but I'm not asking people to play Druids.

Edit: I wanted to quote the guy who made the druid comment, but I'm not so good with this kind of stuff.

[Piccamo]

Intelligence is definitely a dump stat for most Fighters. If you have to choose between a high Str and low Int or mediocre Str and mediocre Int, the high Str is preferable every time. For classes that cannot afford to be versatile, specialization is most important.

[Tengu]

I disagree. Check one of those feat lists over there. It's better to have access to all those tactical feats than have +1 to damage and hit.

[Fawsto]

when it comes to this tree (weapon focus, weapon especialization, etc) we like to say the following:

"IT'S A TRAP!"

[Morty]

Not to mention some skill points and overall feel of not being Thog never hurt.

[de-trick]

I see where that guys coming from about a main sstat where you would put your highest stat, but if you think a 18 for strenght and a 6 in every other would suck. lets see how it would be

http://www.rpgwebprofiler.net/view.php?id=57051

[Person_Man]

I can make a large number of serviceable melee builds with 3 Int. You just have to accept the fact that your Skills will suck rocks and you can't be a Trip build.

Most uber-charge builds don't need Int, nor do uber-defense builds.

[Callix]

Uber-defence builds without Combat Expertise? Heresy! Seriously, Intelligence is a nice extra for a fighter. Non-essential, but 13+ is nice if you can get it. Dexterity and Constitution, now... his skill points wouldn't be the only lousy thing around. How about his AC and hit points? And saves. Charisma is the warrior's dump. Intelligence ties with Wisdom. Nice if you can afford it, but to an extent non-essential.

[Tengu]

What's wisdom for a Fighter for, apart from Will saves and being able to RP an enlightened swordsman (because your DM does not let you be a Swordsage)?

[Raum]

I was DM'ing the other day and I had this really rude player who assumed that stats were each to a class (ie: Strenght= Fighter, Dexterity= Archer, Intelliugence=Wizard), so I told him the rules and how the system works.

He got up and left...stupid Newbie...Everybody is new sometime. Frankly, I'd recommend cultivating a courteous and mentoring attitude if you're going to introduce players to the game.

[Morgan_Scott82]

Everybody is new sometime. Frankly, I'd recommend cultivating a courteous and mentoring attitude if you're going to introduce players to the game.

I thought I was going to have to be the first one to point this out, but I'm glad Raum beat me too it... I may not have been as forgiving. While the player may have had incorrect assumptions about the game, or maybe just opinions that you don't share, regardless I don't think that makes him stupid or an idiot, perhaps ignorant, or even belligerent, but not stupid.

Part of the role of a DM is that of mediator, educator, and sometimes even mental punching bag. If he wants to play a character who focuses exclusively on one stat, what does that matter to you? If he had wrongly assumed that each class would have only a single stat and no longer wanted to play when you pointed out that the truth of the matter was somewhat more complex, that is, also, his prerogative.

[SilverClawShift]

It's easy to take knowledge you have for granted. This is particularily evident when trying to teach someone how to use a computer :smalltongue: It's a normal reaction be frustrated by what someone doesn't know, but that isn't necessarrily fair to them.

Without having seen how this discussion went, we can't really make a personal call one way or the other though. The player could have been loud mouthed and belligerant, replying "That's stupid" to everything about the system, or they could have just been trying to learn with someone who's not a patient teacher.

Ah well.

[Talya]

Not to mention some skill points and overall feel of not being Thog never hurt.

I had a guy playing a xerox of Thog (Half Orc barbarian/fighter, 20 str, 12 dex, 18 con, 6 int, 8 wis, 6 cha) in my campaign. He was the most well liked, fun party member we had. :)

[Dhavaer]

I once played with a guy whose character (orc fighter, named Fluffy) had straight 3s for his mental stats. Weird game.

[Dervag]

I had a guy playing a xerox of Thog (Half Orc barbarian/fighter, 20 str, 12 dex, 18 con, 6 int, 8 wis, 6 cha) in my campaign. He was the most well liked, fun party member we had. :)In fairness, Thog is probably the most well like, fun member of the Linear Guild.

And your guy is smarter than Thog, possibly by a factor of two.

[Person_Man]

Uber-defence builds without Combat Expertise? Heresy! Seriously, Intelligence is a nice extra for a fighter. Non-essential, but 13+ is nice if you can get it. Dexterity and Constitution, now... his skill points wouldn't be the only lousy thing around. How about his AC and hit points? And saves. Charisma is the warrior's dump. Intelligence ties with Wisdom. Nice if you can afford it, but to an extent non-essential.

Hexblade/Blackguard (or variant Paladin, or Corrupt Avenger): Mettle and *2 Cha to most Saves. Buy a Ring of Evasion, and you're 95% immune to magic (the main source of death in D&D).

Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries: PrC with SR= 15+IotDM class levels, plus Improved Evasion, all good Saves, and Wildshape into a Dragon as a capstone ability (ECL 15). Draconomicon.

reach weapon+Combat Reflexes+Evasive Reflexes+Karmic Strike+Hold the Line: Enemy moves toward you, you get replace AoO with 5' steps. With Hold the Line and your normal AoO from their movement through your threatened area, you can just step out of the way of all charge attacks. With Karmic Strike, you will never take a full attack again.

Deepwarden (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040807a&page=4) 2: Replace Dex bonus with Con bonus to AC. With the right maneuver or feat to cover your Reflex Save, you can dump Dex and pump your AC and hit points to sky high levels.

Frostrager (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040911a&page=3): Healed by Cold damage! Have your best pal take Energy Substitution, and dump Cold Fireballs into the middle of the battlefield.

Fist of the Forest: Con to AC when unarmored. Deepwarden/Frostrager/Fist of the Forest FTW! Complete Champion.

Passive Way Monk (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedCoreClass.html#fighting-styles): Combat Expertise and Improved Trip as Bonus feats. No Int required!

FYI, a 3 Int Human with Nymph's Kiss gets 3 Skill Points per level, enough to cover anything you might need for a Leap Attack or whatnot.

[Indon]

A Duelist/Warblade would gain bonuses to AC and Reflex saves based on INT. What other fighter-type classes get that sort of thing that you could stack with it?

[Stephen_E]

Just a side note.

Some of those builds that skip the need for good stats in many of the attibutes require inteligence to figure out.

Thog the thick, with a Int of 6, worked out all the special training he'd need to maximise his potential. How?

Of course in RL int that low generally involves some sort of brain damage/Handicap. Along with the intelectual impairment there is ussually impairment to reflexes and/or co-ordination.

Did I just kill a catgirl?

Stephen

[I_Got_This_Name]

Intelligence scores below 10 are often RPed incredibly poorly.

1 in 216 people, generated according to the 3d6 in order roll method (IIRC, default for ordinary people, when you're not using an array; also, averages to the nonelite array), has 3 int. Look around some crowd sometime (assuming the crowd doesn't deviate from the average, intellectually); half of a percent of that crowd has an intelligence score of three. Another half percent has an intelligence score of 18.

For a 4 or 17, there are three ways in 216 (each). A whole 2% of the population has an intelligence score of 4 or less (actually I'm rounding 1/216 to .5%, here, so a little less).

A 5 (or 16) has six ways (a three and two ones, or two twoes and a one; either one can be rearranged three ways). That's 3% of the population with an intelligence score of 5, right there.

Now we're up at a six. You can get this with:
1, 2, 3 (six ways to rearrange)
2, 2, 2 (one way to rearrange)
1, 1, 4 (three ways to rearrange)

That's 10 ways; that's almost 5%. Adds up to 20/216, or about 9% of the population, having an intelligence score of 6 or less. Unless one person in 11 is brain damaged, you can have int 6 without brain damage.

That said, Thog is still quite lovable.

Now, as for how someone figures out a build that might take more work to plan than they can do: either they stumble into it (even if their player planned it; player planning != character planning), or someone trained them.

[Draz74]

Intelligence scores below 10 are often RPed incredibly poorly.

1 in 216 people, generated according to the 3d6 in order roll method (IIRC, default for ordinary people, when you're not using an array; also, averages to the nonelite array), has 3 int. Look around some crowd sometime (assuming the crowd doesn't deviate from the average, intellectually);

Not a good assumption, since Survival of the Fittest tends to eliminate the 3-Int people pretty quick (see: Darwin Awards) ...

:thog: thog know thog dumb. but since when thog have bad charisma?

[horseboy]

Intelligence scores below 10 are often RPed incredibly poorly.

1 in 216 people, generated according to the 3d6 in order roll method (IIRC, default for ordinary people, when you're not using an array; also, averages to the nonelite array), has 3 int. Look around some crowd sometime (assuming the crowd doesn't deviate from the average, intellectually); half of a percent of that crowd has an intelligence score of three. Another half percent has an intelligence score of 18.


Or to put it simply, an IQ if 100 is the average IQ score. 50% of the worlds population have an IQ of under 100. Anybody who's ever worked in retail would know this. :smallamused:

[AslanCross]

What's wisdom for a Fighter for, apart from Will saves and being able to RP an enlightened swordsman (because your DM does not let you be a Swordsage)?

The Combat Forms feat tree from PHB II requires WIS 13+, but that's about it. I see WIS and CHA as the dump stats for a Fighter; I really appreciated how INT became more useful for fighters in 3.x.

[Stephen_E]

Keep in mind that Int 2 in non-sentient/animal
Int 3 is the lowest Int possible for a human to be.
So yes, Int 6 probably involves mental handicap to some degree.
If you add in the likelyhood that many of those low Ints never make it to adulthood, you're looking at a lower persentage.

Even in modern life a significant amount won't make it to adulthood.
As to the numbers of people who have brain damage, It's tricky because you'd have to differentiate from those with brain damage who aren't intellectually handicapped. The truth is that I'd be surprised if as few as 9% of the population is brain damaged. But probably most people with brain damage have no visible effect. Take an Epeletic, when they're not have seizures there's ussually nothing to show.

But lets be fair. We're only really talking about those who have Ints of 6 or less. Now keep in mind that you simply don't see most of the people who have Ints of 3 & 4. They simply don't generally function well in "normal" society. That leaves us with the 5 & 6's. Even those have a fair amount who are institutionalised, cared for at home, in prisons or street people (people with low intelligance are way over represented amonst the homeless and imprisoned). So taking this into account, along with the increased death rate, and you end up with the percentage of "visible" population with Ints of 6 or less should be much less than 9%.

Stephen

edit
PS. Of course this runs into the problem that Int in DnD is very problematic.
Animals are defined as having Ints of 1-2 (which means you can't learn a language). Int 3 means you know one language poorly. A number of animals have taught languages, and I don't mean "polly has a cracker". I'm talking about communicating with humans. Indeed IIRC at least one ape actually created a new word in the sign language she had learnt to cover something that she hadn't come across before.

[Dervag]

Intelligence scores below 10 are often RPed incredibly poorly.

1 in 216 people, generated according to the 3d6 in order roll method (IIRC, default for ordinary people, when you're not using an array; also, averages to the nonelite array), has 3 int. Look around some crowd sometime (assuming the crowd doesn't deviate from the average, intellectually); half of a percent of that crowd has an intelligence score of three. Another half percent has an intelligence score of 18.My God; I've been saying this over and over and this is the first sign I've seen that anyone else believes it! Thank you!


Or to put it simply, an IQ if 100 is the average IQ score. 50% of the worlds population have an IQ of under 100. Anybody who's ever worked in retail would know this. :smallamused:And the ones with the low IQs are the ones who ask the most and dumbest questions and who waste the most time, so they stick in your memory, which leads the retail worker to conclude that way more than half the population has below average intelligence, because the stupid people are the ones they spend the most time interacting with.


Keep in mind that Int 2 in non-sentient/animal
Int 3 is the lowest Int possible for a human to be.
So yes, Int 6 probably involves mental handicap to some degree.
If you add in the likelyhood that many of those low Ints never make it to adulthood, you're looking at a lower persentage.Define 'handicap'. Is someone who reads at a fifth-grade level handicapped? What about someone who thinks the Earth is flat because their priest told them that it says so in the Bible and that's good enough for them?

I would say not. Such people are functional. Handicaps must impair your ability to live and work; and you can work while reading at a fifth grade level, even if there are limits to the jobs you can do.


Even in modern life a significant amount won't make it to adulthood.
As to the numbers of people who have brain damage, It's tricky because you'd have to differentiate from those with brain damage who aren't intellectually handicapped. The truth is that I'd be surprised if as few as 9% of the population is brain damaged. But probably most people with brain damage have no visible effect. Take an Epeletic, when they're not have seizures there's ussually nothing to show.But epileptics aren't stupid, and low-Int people are, so people with epilepsy aren't a good example.

The fact remains that a normal distribution of stats based on a 3d6 die roll tells us that something like one person in ten has an intelligence of 6 or lower. You know people with that kind of intelligence; it's a statistical certainty. The fact that they someone has an intelligence penalty doesn't mean they're drooling any more than the fact that someone has a strength penalty means that they're a cripple who can't move.

The problem is that most players have roughly average intelligence, and relatively few PCs have below-average intelligence. So the PCs are being played as smarter than average people, by people who have only average smarts. So we get a deflated sense of what a high intelligence score means; "anyone with sense" is assumed to have an Int modifier of 0 or higher.

In reality the statistics simply can't work like that. There have to be functional people out there with Int 9, 8, 7, and yes, 6. Once you get into Int 5 and lower the deficiency becomes really serious; Int 3 is almost guaranteed to reflect brain damage, a birth defect, or a very serious psychiatric condition.


Animals are defined as having Ints of 1-2 (which means you can't learn a language). Int 3 means you know one language poorly. A number of animals have taught languages, and I don't mean "polly has a cracker". I'm talking about communicating with humans. Indeed IIRC at least one ape actually created a new word in the sign language she had learnt to cover something that she hadn't come across before.Statistically speaking, animals don't learn languages. There are a few exceptions in the most intelligent species on the planet; these are arguably species that should be listed as being a minor exception to the rule.

But for something like 999999 in a million animal species on Earth, it's safe to say that all members of the species cannot be taught a human language and therefore have an Int of 1 or 2.

For the sake of having reliable rules, D&D makes a number of generalizations that are not perfectly true in real life, such as "no animal can learn a language." They are merely almost true in real life: "except for a few very bright apes and dolphins, no animal can learn a language."

[Deme]

Of course this runs into the problem that Int in DnD is very problematic.
Animals are defined as having Ints of 1-2 (which means you can't learn a language). Int 3 means you know one language poorly. A number of animals have taught languages, and I don't mean "polly has a cracker". I'm talking about communicating with humans. Indeed IIRC at least one ape actually created a new word in the sign language she had learnt to cover something that she hadn't come across before.

In additon, IIRC, there was(possibly he's still around, I have no actual clue.) a parrot who, after being taught about letters, apparently figured out how to spell on his own. and, though it's not quite the same thing, there's some variety of small, group-living burrowing mammal (I can never keep that sort of thing straight. possibly prairie dogs) that actually have their own, very complicated, system of calls that, in addition to being able to describe new things, contains types of speech such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and possibly adverbs.

oh, and then you get into how faulty the stat-based system is at describing differnet TYPES of intelligence.

Autism's a pretty good example of this.
Remembering things about trains(or, you know, whatever the person in question has latched onto and is sucking the fact-based marrow from every source on the subject available, but trains is a good example.)= great.
Realizing a rule or lesson already learned can be extended to a different circumstance = not so good, extending all the way down into hopelessly bad. ((which is why I suck at anything involving formulas.))
how would that filter out into a single score? (the same problem occours with wisdom. good perception, bad common sense)

On the whole, trying to take the scores as TOO direct a representation is going to lead to A LOT of complications. what about people with strong senses of self and confidence but social anxieties? mental stats, like magic pictures, hurt your head if you stare at them enough.

[Tokiko Mima]

Autism's a pretty good example of this.
Remembering things about trains(or, you know, whatever the person in question has latched onto and is sucking the fact-based marrow from every source on the subject available, but trains is a good example.)= great.
Realizing a rule or lesson already learned can be extended to a different circumstance = not so good, extending all the way down into hopelessly bad. ((which is why I suck at anything involving formulas.))

I think what you're describing here is the Savant Syndrome, which occurs and can be seen in people afflicted with autism, but every autistic person is not a autistic savant. It's also exceedingly rare in real life, but less so in movies and on TV. :smallwink:

[Dervag]

Granted, mental stats aren't good at modeling every possible detail of the human mind. But they're supposed to be a rough model; there are huge aspects of the human experience that cannot and are not expected to be rolled into ability scores.

Physical stats aren't good at modeling every possible detail of the human physique, either.

For instance, weightlifters have lots of muscles. Punching a weightlifter isn't going to be especially effective; they're generally tough.

But they don't have exceptional endurance. Try to make them run all day and there's a real chance that they'll fall over dead.

So do weightlifters have high constitution (high resistance to pain and injury) or low constitution (poor endurance for sustained physical tasks)?

Conversely, cross-country runners can run all day, but are generally physically light and therefore probably easier to punch out. Do they have high constitution or low constitution?

Granted, this is an oversimplification. There are weightlifters who can run and there are some hellaciously tough runners. But it illustrates a major principle. The score we call 'constitution' takes several separate or semi-separate aspects of human physiology and rolls them into one number. That number can't cover everything in every person any more than the one number 'intelligence' can cover both expertise in a specialty and mental flexibility.

But it's a pretty good approximation. You can get fairly far describing people in terms of the Six Statistics, or some related variant on them, and it will give you a rough idea of what they are capable of.

[Arathian]

I always enjoyed playing across-class attributes. Like a fighter with a higher Intelligence than Strength. Or a wizard with a higher Wisdom than Intelligence.

Makes them seem a bit more odd.



While that's somewhat refreshing it is a bit.... what's the word I'm searching for... not as effective.

As for the main question. If I recall what I have read in some 3.5 ish rule books and a few of the pc games at 3.0 and such that a fight would need int for skill points and some certain combat feats.

I believe expertise for one needs like 13 int, if I am not mistaken. Now I can't remember precisely what the hell that feat DOES I do believe it needs 13 int.

[Dhavaer]

I believe expertise for one needs like 13 int, if I am not mistaken. Now I can't remember precisely what the hell that feat DOES I do believe it needs 13 int.

Combat Expertise allows you to apply up to 5 points of BAB to your AC.

[Boris_the_Fat]

Sad thing in player acting like that, is they're missing the point of stats: they appear to create a kind of character.

Play a charismatic warrior who lacks wisdom. Play a strong but anemic cleric. They will make wonderfull character. The whole point is to create a role playing game, while having fun, not to boast your ego.

[Deme]

I think what you're describing here is the Savant Syndrome, which occurs and can be seen in people afflicted with autism, but every autistic person is not a autistic savant. It's also exceedingly rare in real life, but less so in movies and on TV. :smallwink:

true, true. I never said it was a perfect comparison, just a good one. I could have used ones about squirrels finding nuts after burying them, but I figured my whole post would be about animals then, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but also because that sort of thing scales well, to where relatively normal people show minor versions of the same concept. also could have used the fact that most people who are very good at things like english are noticably less good at things like math, but I was in an Animals in Translation sort of mood, and the idea didn't occour to me.