How to deal with 3 int?

[SangoProduction]

So, this DM has a bunch of homebrew races he wants the players to use. I plan on using one that has a -8 racial modifier to intelligence. Obviously, I will never have any notable number of skill points. And I will avoid intelligence casting like the plague...because it's impossible to use.

But how should I respond to this imposition of stats that I gave to myself?

How do I prevent myself from taking the 3 int damage / drain that would be required to take me out?

Should I try and get my int above 3, to some degree, or just dump it as hard as possible, since 3 is the minimum int score, regardless of racial modifier?

Also, how would one really play a 3 int character?

[el minster]

I think you should put it at 6 just to stay safe.

[Batcathat]

Realistically role playing someone with 3 INT seems like it would be nearly impossible and probably quite annoying for everyone involved. But I've been wrong before so maybe it's doable.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Actually, it's quite possible to get a decent Int score, even with a -8.

If it's point buy, start with a 16.

-8 for race.

+3 for venerable age.

+5 for level-ups.

+6 for a headband of Int.

+5 for 5 wishes.

+6 for bestow curse.

+6 for greater bestow curse

That leaves you with a 39 Int at level 20, which isn't half-bad at all.

Of course, you could always use a shapeshifting power to get the body without the Int limitations.

Or you could do a body swap with something else, get a double-polymorph any object while in that body to boost your Int score to whatever the form's native Int is, then swap back. Now you're in your original body with a decent Int score.

Or you could use aspect of the wolf to be considered of the Animal type, followed by a Maximized/Empowered awaken spell for a base Int score of 18+(3d6)x1.5.

So, depending on how much effort you want to put in and what your DM considers to be acceptable, you could actually have a really good Int score regardless of your racial penalties.

[SangoProduction]

Right. Um. Level 3. I didn't mention that.

Also, I highly doubt any dm would rule that you can change your mental stats by shape shifting.

*Shapechanges into a wolf, immediately forgetting how or why I shapechanged, and elopes with some random she-wolf that happened by the fight*

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Right. Um. Level 3. I didn't mention that.

Also, I highly doubt any dm would rule that you can change your mental stats by shape shifting.

*Shapechanges into a wolf, immediately forgetting how or why I shapechanged, and elopes to be with some random she-wolf that happened by the fight*{Scrubbed} that's not how that works.

[Vaern]

How do I prevent myself from taking the 3 int damage / drain that would be required to take me out?

Should I try and get my int above 3, to some degree, or just dump it as hard as possible, since 3 is the minimum int score, regardless of racial modifier?

Also, how would one really play a 3 int character?
You only need to take 1 point of int damage to take you out, really. 3 is the minimum to be a playable character. 0 will make you helpless. 1 or 2 int and you'll technically be an NPC until you're restored to 3.

I'd personally say dump hard, then use temp bonuses to boost your int. It'll be a lot easier than trying to overcome the -8 at character creation, though it may not be a practical strategy from level 3...

As for playing the character. Decide what intelligence actually means to you. It's not necessarily a measure of how much your character knows, as the knowledge should represent that separately. Perhaps it's a measure of how quickly and accurately you're able to process information. Maybe you speak slowly as you pick out what words you want to use. Take a minute to work out what people mean when they use big words and respond as though you think they meant something different than what was intended. You can read unless you're a barbarian, but you need to go slow and sound out the letters out loud as you go. That sort of thing.

[Batcathat]

As for playing the character. Decide what intelligence actually means to you. It's not necessarily a measure of how much your character knows, as the knowledge should represent that separately. Perhaps it's a measure of how quickly and accurately you're able to process information. Maybe you speak slowly as you pick out what words you want to use. Take a minute to work out what people mean when they use big words and respond as though you think they meant something different than what was intended. You can read unless you're a barbarian, but you need to go slow and sound out the letters out loud as you go. That sort of thing.

I'm not sure that's enough for 3 INT. That's not just a little less intelligent than most, it's barely more than an animal.

[hamishspence]

In 3e, it's still smarter than the smartest animals - chimps, dolphins, elephants. Unless they're a barbarian, an Int 3 character with PC levels can still read, for example.

As The Giant put it:



In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment); speak, read, and write a language fluently; and generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon.

[Quertus]

Just add a template to make you immune to stat damage, like Bone or Necropolitan.

As for RP… go research the dumbest people technically still capable of speech. Politicians, Darwin Awards winner, whatever. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

That might be more a case of Low Wisdom. :smallbiggrin:

[dancrilis]

I'm not sure that's enough for 3 INT. That's not just a little less intelligent than most, it's barely more than an animal.

It think that is a common way to look at it but it doesn't seem to track with the actual game.

An Int 3 Level 20 Expert could happilly be fluent in over a dozen languages and be excellent on the topic of 'History' and 'Architecture and Engineering' - that is not someone who is barely above a badger.

Effectively I would say that the line 'A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3' is meant to be relatively normal human intelligence, able to carry a conversation clearly and reasonably etc - both doesn't have a lot of breadth so if you actually talk to them for a while you would figure out that they don't really know anything outside of their expertise (or if they are not a specialist then they seem to have some ok ideas but they struggle at the more high end matters of the subject).

But a lot of this would presumedly depend on the player and the DM - if the DM wants you to be obviously annoyingly stupid then fine (if you are happy playing that), if instead they see it as merely somewhat limited in scope but otherwise fairly normal (and if you are happy playing that) then fine.

[Fizban]

All animals are assigned Int 2 for DnD purposes, even though parrots and gorillas can be taught language (and who knows what else they've taught these days). When addressed with the Speak With Animals spell, animals are able to answer questions. When some people play their average Int barbarians as little more than attack dogs and the usual assumption is that anyone with a pet gets to run its actions for convenience, there is no reason to assume you can't continue to run your character if your Int is reduced to 2 or 1.

You know exactly as many languages as the normal minimum for your race, usually common plus a racial language if any.

There is no mechanical penalty to your ability to read, use, or parse language, though most people would recommend you stick to short sentences with simple words. Even so, something like xkcd's book about explaining things with only the 100 most common words quickly shows that you cannot call someone fluent with that short of a vocuabulary- and since you're fluent, that means you cannot actually have such a heavy restriction.

You get a minimum of 1 skill point per level, with 4 points at first. This is enough to keep one skill maxed out, or remove untrained penalties for up to four skills (presumably you would not bother putting points in Int based skills). You have half as many skill points as the average commoner (warrior, fighter, etc) of any non-human race, or 1/3 of the average Human commoner.

If you take a class with 6 or 8 skill points, you instead have 2 or 4, for 1/3 or 1/2 as many as the average member of that class.

With a -4 modifier, your chance of having "common knowledge" DC 10 untrained information, decreases from 55% to 35%. Worse, noticeably, but not hilariously.

Similarly, the penalty on all Craft checks means that instead of an 80% chance to succeed on making a wooden spoon, you have a 60% chance. However, you have no penalty on Profession checks, meaning you can sustain any number of possible businesses or broad marketable skills exactly as effectively as anyone else.

Your penalty on Appraise checks means that you have only a 25% chance of evaluating the worth of a well-known or common item, compared to the 45% chance of the average person. The fact that you have next to no chance of evaluating a rarer item simply means that you won't be rolling the wide 50-150% range an untrained success would garner.

If an arbitrary DC 0 non-trained Decipher Script use was assigned to a piece of writing in your known language(s), you would have a 15% chance to fail such a check.


As for dealing with the threat of Int damage- if the DM is asking you to play their -8 Int race, it would be some real bull if they went and threw a Ray of Stupidity at you as thanks. You can mention this beforehand. Penalties that can't drop you below 1 just reduce you to instinct mode, but don't erase your attitude toward your companions. For the rare monster that actually deals Int damage, well it barely takes a Lesser Restoration to get to functioning again. You could have the cleric (or you, if you're the cleric, because Wis) use Soul Ward for a preventative measure.

Or buy an Intelligent Orb of Mental Renewal for 5,100gp- since intelligent magic items can activate themselves, you can basically have automatic activation on any one item you want (to avoid conflicts) for a mere 2,000gp. Presuming such an item exists to buy, or you have a CL 15 crafter with compatible alignment.*

*Of course, the item creation section then says that you determine the actual abilities randomly, as if anyone would make a randomized item. But it also doesn't actually say that you add the base prices for those randomly generated abilities, so one simply declares those to be free instead, reducing the price of an auto-activating item to 1,000gp.

[Mastikator]

If you're doing point buy you can dump it completely since it's just free points. THEN raise it with magic items/spells.

As long as your wisdom or charisma is decent you can still have access to spell casting via sorcerer/cleric/druid.

[Batcathat]

Effectively I would say that the line 'A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3' is meant to be relatively normal human intelligence, able to carry a conversation clearly and reasonably etc - both doesn't have a lot of breadth so if you actually talk to them for a while you would figure out that they don't really know anything outside of their expertise (or if they are not a specialist then they seem to have some ok ideas but they struggle at the more high end matters of the subject).

Isn't 10 supposed to be "normal human intelligence" though? While you're probably right from a RAW perspective it seems weird that someone with 3 intelligence wouldn't be noticably dumber than someone with 10.

[AntiAuthority]

Also, how would one really play a 3 int character?

A 3 intelligence is animalistic and acts on instinct... So you might not even be able to speak. This reminds me of the Fallout series, where if you play a low intelligence character in the first game, your character can only respond in grunts, so you could do that (would make communicating very difficult)? If not, you could take the New Vegas route and be so stupid that your character speaks like this to everyone. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XllttBJi98)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A 3 intelligence is animalistic and acts on instinct... So you might not even be able to speak. This reminds me of the Fallout series, where if you play a low intelligence character in the first game, your character can only respond in grunts, so you could do that (would make communicating very difficult)? If not, you could take the New Vegas route and be so stupid that your character speaks like this to everyone. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XllttBJi98)An Int 2 creature is animalistic.

Int 3 is of human-like (albeit a rather unintelligent human-like) intellect.

[AntiAuthority]

An Int 2 creature is animalistic.

Int 3 is of human-like (albeit a rather unintelligent human-like) intellect.

I was referencing this page (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/BASICS-ABILITY-SCORES/ability-scores/#Intelligence_Int), which lists 3 as being animalistic.

[Batcathat]

I was referencing this page (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/BASICS-ABILITY-SCORES/ability-scores/#Intelligence_Int), which lists 3 as being animalistic.

If that page is accurate someone with 3 INT "acts mostly on instinct but can be trained". Maybe the OP can ask another party member to train him? :smallwink:

[dancrilis]

Isn't 10 supposed to be "normal human intelligence" though? While you're probably right from a RAW perspective it seems weird that someone with 3 intelligence wouldn't be noticably dumber than someone with 10.

It depends on how you look at it.

If INT 10.5 is IQ 100 then INT 10 might be IQ ~99.5 and INT 11 IQ 100.5.
INT 3 could then be IQ ~92.5 which isn't a good but isn't anywhere near mentally incompetant either, and INT 18 could be IQ ~107.5 which is decent but is also nothing special in the grand scheme of things.

As such your INT 3 character who wishes to be a historian will have an uphill road to travel - but the hill is travelable for them.

You could obviously expand those ranges out as you think is appropriate for your game and IQ may not be the best comparison to use, but as an example it likely makes the point.

If someone wants to they could use the whole idea that if you were rolling 3d6 in order and assigning the scores then you have a 1 in 216 chance of getting an INT of 3 or 18 - which doesn't sound like a lot but it means that every village might have both people.

[Aotrs Commander]

It depends on how you look at it.

If INT 10.5 is IQ 100 then INT 10 might be IQ ~99.5 and INT 11 IQ 100.5.
INT 3 could then be IQ ~92.5 which isn't a good but isn't anywhere near mentally incompetant either, and INT 18 could be IQ ~107.5 which is decent but is also nothing special in the grand scheme of things.

As such your INT 3 character who wishes to be a historian will have an uphill road to travel - but the hill is travelable for them.

You could obviously expand those ranges out as you think is appropriate for your game and IQ may not be the best comparison to use, but as an example it likely makes the point.

If someone wants to they could use the whole idea that if you were rolling 3d6 in order and assigning the scores then you have a 1 in 216 chance of getting an INT of 3 or 18 - which doesn't sound like a lot but it means that every village might have both people.

Better question, then: what is the bellcurve IQ for 0.004669% percentile (1/216)? If you can find that information, it might not be a bad place to work from as a ballpark figure.

[Batcathat]

If INT 10.5 is IQ 100 then INT 10 might be IQ ~99.5 and INT 11 IQ 100.5.
INT 3 could then be IQ ~92.5 which isn't a good but isn't anywhere near mentally incompetant either, and INT 18 could be IQ ~107.5 which is decent but is also nothing special in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure if INT and IQ can really be compared like that but even if they can, INT 18 or a little over is supposed to be like genius level intelligence, isn't it? Which is usually way over 107.5.

[dancrilis]

Better question, then: what is the bellcurve IQ for 0.004669% percentile (1/216)? If you can find that information, it might not be a bad place to work from as a ballpark figure.

Without bothering to do the work myself this (https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/iq-percentile-calculator.php) indicates that IQ 61 and IQ 139 are at the 1/215 level.

Which seems fine for INT 18 but somewhat low for the potential capability of INT 3 (i.e 4 ranks in a knowledge skill + skill focus at level one to be a decent person to ask about the subject) but then as mentioned INT and IQ are not directly comparable.


I'm not sure if INT and IQ can really be compared like that but even if they can, INT 18 or a little over is supposed to be like genius level intelligence, isn't it? Which is usually way over 107.5.

Depends on how you view it I think the Genius lable for it was AD&D (it has been a long time since I looked) - and you could certainly go with that but again we would likely say that 140 is normal human (your not Gauss or Telsa with that level).

[ThanatosZero]

+6 for bestow curse.

+6 for greater bestow curse

How exactly can you invert the penality to a bonus?




Or you could use aspect of the wolf to be considered of the Animal type, followed by a Maximized/Empowered awaken spell for a base Int score of 18+(3d6)x1.5.


In addition get yourself Polymorph another Object for to be turned temporally into a real tree. Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximise allow a druid to cast Awaken as soon they gain access to the spell.
As for PaO?
Find within the setting a high level wizard able of casting PAO. Pay them a decent amount for to cast the spell.
Then the druid casts the Awaken spell with sudden metamagic feats.

And later in epic, Intensify Metamagic will double the gains.
36 Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma is something nobody should underrestimate.

This also works for the Awaken Construct spell.

[Segev]

Remember that stereotypically "dumb" races that have 6ish Int also tend to have low Charisma. That combines with the Int to make the "unattractively stupid" stereotype characterized by, say, Ralph the Guard in Animaniacs.

A reasonable Charisma can cover a LOT of literal stupidity behind apparent eloquence. Sure, you probably aren't using $20 words correctly, but you likely enunciate clearly and can express your thoughts.

So you can RP talking reasonably normally.

Reasonably, of course, being the operative word: use small words and simple sentences.

Your biggest weakness is in logic, math, and memory. If you're not low-Wisdom, you need not be particularly gullible, nor prone to foolish decisions, but you would have a difficult time articulating WHY you think something is a good or bad idea, or WHY that person isn't trustworthy.

Stubborn adherence to intuition and emotion should likely rule decision-making, with allowance made for trust in those you ... well, trust. If somebody you trust says something, and it doesn't immediately seem wrong, trusting them to know what they're talking about seems reasonable to a person with very low intelligence. If it does seem wrong, though, arguing about it from a position of "nuh uh" is actually quite...in character.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How exactly can you invert the penality to a bonus?Both bestow curse and its greater sibling say, "You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above."

The absolute value of 6 is equal to the absolute value of -6. They're equal in scope, equal in range, and equal in overall size.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Make a Necropolitan or other undead and you're immune to mind-affecting and poison, the two most likely sources of Int damage. It doesn't have a LA but it does cost you at least 1,000 xp (say you gained it at 2nd level and lost that exact amount). Say you were made one in the area of a Fell Energy Desecrate with an evil altar for +6 hp/level. If possible, say you were made one by a Dread Necromancer 8+/Wizard 1+ with Enhance Undead (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#necromancerVariants) and the entire Corpsecrafter line of feats in LM for another +6 hp/level, +4 Str, Dex, and initiative, +2 natural armor and turn resistance, +10 ft. movement, +1d6 cold damage on natural weapon attacks, etc.

You can put a 15 on Int and make it a 7. If you're already undead make him venerable age, undead are immune to penalties to their physical stats which includes age penalties, so that's +3 Int, Wis, Cha, and you have Int 10.



How exactly can you invert the penality to a bonus?

I think he's doing some acrobatics with the apparent double negative "-6 decrease" in the spell description. No DM would or should ever agree with that ruling.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I think he's doing some acrobatics with the apparent double negative "-6 decrease" in the spell description. No DM would or should ever agree with that ruling.Something like that.

What are the other stats on this -8 Int race?

[Nifft]

So, this DM has a bunch of homebrew races he wants the players to use.
(snip)
Should I try and get my int above 3, to some degree, or just dump it as hard as possible, since 3 is the minimum int score, regardless of racial modifier?

Also, how would one really play a 3 int character?

Your DM wants you to test the thing. Therefore you should be a good tester and try to break it. Dump Int as hard as you can, and tell your DM that seemed like the intended obvious thing with such a penalty.


In terms of playing a low-Int PC, I'd do something which allowed me as a player to have fun and solve problems and contribute -- so a "lucky accident" type of character, where I'm able to help the other players, but the PC has no clue about what his own actions mean.

You could also do low-Int things like responding to tone, not content. If someone you recognize seems angry while facing you, say "Sorry". If someone you recognize is angry while facing away from you, jump in with a "Yeah!"

[Quertus]

That might be more a case of Low Wisdom. :smallbiggrin:

That's why it was blue :smallwink:

Trying to discuss IQ 60 might get a little personal (actually, what's the cutoff for public school? Is it all but guaranteed that everyone likely has such in their personal history?), so I'll leave that discussion to those with higher Charisma.

[Blue Jay]

Also, how would one really play a 3 int character?

Personally, I would look for inspiration from animal characters in cartoons. Not the cartoons where animals can talk and such, but the cartoons where the human main characters have animal friends, like Sven from Frozen or Meeko and Flit from Pocahontas. Those animal characters interact with the human characters as if they were humans themselves, and they even reason like humans in some ways; but they can't communicate as effectively, they have simpler motivations behind their actions, and they rarely seem to think more than one step ahead.

Or you could use the raptors from the Jurassic Park movies as a model. They're smart enough to set traps, divine people's intentions, solve problems and communicate basic information with one another; but they're not really smart enough to develop their own tools or anything.

I don't know if this sort of "feral" character is what you'd be going for, but that seems like a reasonable benchmark to me.

[InvisibleBison]

+6 for bestow curse.

+6 for greater bestow curse

How is a bonus to an ability score a curse?

[Nifft]

How is a bonus to an ability score a curse?

The key to really effective optimization is reading the rules wrong, and not having a DM to correct you.

[tyckspoon]

How is a bonus to an ability score a curse?

Bestow Curse doesn't actually say it has to be a penalty or cause a negative effect on the subject.. this is way deep in Air Bud territory and I wouldn't recommend trying that one out on an actual DM and not just a rules grammar parser, tho.

[FauxKnee]

How is a bonus to an ability score a curse?


The key to really effective optimization is reading the rules wrong, and not having a DM to correct you.


Both bestow curse and its greater sibling say, "You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above."

The absolute value of 6 is equal to the absolute value of -6. They're equal in scope, equal in range, and equal in overall size.

This question is already addressed earlier in the thread. I don't necessarily agree with MaxiDuRaritry's logic, but I can understand the argument. It's definitely against the spirit of the spell, but the letter of the spell is murkier to enforce.

"Curse" is not a defined game term, so we fall back on the standard meaning of the word. I would certainly expect it to be something detrimental to the character under at least some circumstances. If it was +6 stat one hour per day and -6 the other 23 hours, it would definitely be a curse. If it was 12 and 12, I still think it would count as a curse. The hard part is deciding how bad the downside has to be for it to count as a curse. If you really want to laugh it up though, delve into the horror that is the TVTropes "Cursed with Awesome" article (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Not all "curses" are negative. Greater bestow curse can increase your age category to the next one, making you older. This can be fantastic for a wizard or a young dragon. Likewise, the spell can do a gender-swap, male-to-female, female-to-male, etc. This is a major boon for someone with gender dysmorphia.

The effect merely needs to be on a power level with the effects listed. I just mentioned it as a possibility.

As far as "reading the rules wrong," someone should probably actually read the spell before he goes insulting others.

[SangoProduction]

Regardless, let's move on from the talk of curses applying bonuses. Let's nip this silly thing in the bud before the mods do. OK?

[InvisibleBison]

Bestow Curse doesn't actually say it has to be a penalty or cause a negative effect on the subject.

Yes, it does, in the very first sentence of the spell description: "You place a curse on the subject." A curse is, by definition, a bad thing.


Not all "curses" are negative. Greater bestow curse can increase your age category to the next one, making you older. This can be fantastic for a wizard or a young dragon. Likewise, the spell can do a gender-swap, male-to-female, female-to-male, etc. This is a major boon for someone with gender dysmorphia.

The fact that some people might be able to find a silver lining in some curses doesn't mean that a purely positive effect counts as a curse. For most people, the effects you're describing are flat-out bad. No one is going to say that being made much smarter, or stronger, or whatever, is a bad thing that some people are nevertheless able to derive some benefit from.

[Elysiume]

Realistically role playing someone with 3 INT seems like it would be nearly impossible and probably quite annoying for everyone involved. But I've been wrong before so maybe it's doable.I'll second this. Looking through the bestiaries, 3 int creatures seem to top out at having extremely basic societies and moderate understanding of one language. It's unlikely that any such creature would be able to get a good understanding of social mores, engage in anything beyond extremely basic conversation, or meaningfully interact with puzzles. I'd find it stifling to play as one and likely annoying to play with one.

[Biggus]

Also, how would one really play a 3 int character?

The nearest I've come to being able to make sense of low Int Scores in D&D is the old-style "mental age" IQ tests. While some aspects of IQ continue rising into the early 20s, most top out at around 16, so if we say someone with Int 10 has the intelligence of a 16-year old, that works out at 1.6 years of mental age per point, so Int 3 would be the equivalent of an average 3.2-4.8 year old child.

So, someone with Int 3 might know 500 words, be able to count to 20, understand the concept of symbols, understand consequences of their actions on a basic level, speak in sentences, sing songs, and tell stories. What they're not capable of is anything but the most basic logical reasoning, abstract thought or planning for the future, and they're easily fooled by even the simplest tricks.

It's not perfect by any means, but I haven't seen a better way of estimating what low-Int characters (below 7ish) would be like.


It think that is a common way to look at it but it doesn't seem to track with the actual game.

An Int 3 Level 20 Expert could happilly be fluent in over a dozen languages and be excellent on the topic of 'History' and 'Architecture and Engineering' - that is not someone who is barely above a badger.


This is one of the many occasions where putting two D&D rules together leads to a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense. I don't think it's a very useful basis for comparison.

FWIW, I think a large part of the problem is that there's a digital switch between "animal intelligence" and "human intelligence" between Int 2 and Int 3, which doesn't really work if you examine it too closely. It's one of those abstractions-for-convenience that D&D is full of, as it rarely matters in-game so the designers didn't think it was worth complicating things over.

[Psyren]

Both bestow curse and its greater sibling say, "You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above."

The absolute value of 6 is equal to the absolute value of -6. They're equal in scope, equal in range, and equal in overall size.

Except penalizing ability scores and buffing them aren't equal. Compare Ray of Enfeeblement or Touch of Idiocy to Bull's Strength or Fox's Cunning for instance - the spells that apply penalties are more powerful (range, duration, ceiling etc) for the same level because penalties are easier to apply.

[Nifft]

Except penalizing ability scores and buffing them aren't equal. Compare Ray of Enfeeblement or Touch of Idiocy to Bull's Strength or Fox's Cunning for instance - the spells that apply penalties are more powerful (range, duration, ceiling etc) for the same level because penalties are easier to apply.

Building on that, an untyped bonus is not even close in value to an untyaped penalty.

A permanent, cheap, risk-free untyped bonus is not even close to the value of a removable penalty which would have been applied at some risk.

[dancrilis]

This is one of the many occasions where putting two D&D rules together leads to a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense.

Except in this instance it is not two rules, it is one rule and one assumption*.
Assumption: Intelligence 3 means a character is obviously stupid.
Rules: Intelligence 3 characters can be excellent diplomats, doctors, innkeepers, guides etc, and if they put in the time and effort (i.e skill points and feats) be at least passable at mundane activities that they are not naturally suited for.
Conclusion: The assumption is not correct.

Edit: Unless of course there is some rule somewhere I am unaware of, in which case a reference would be helpful.

[Batcathat]

Except in this instance it is not two rules, it is one rule and one assumption*.
Assumption: Intelligence 3 means a character is obviously stupid.
Rules: Intelligence 3 characters can be excellent diplomats, doctors, innkeepers, guides etc, and if they put in the time and effort (i.e skill points and feats) be at least passable at mundane activities that they are not naturally suited for.
Conclusion: The assumption is not correct.

Yes, clearly the most reasonable conclusion is that there are literally no stupid people in D&D. :smallconfused: (Yes, you're probably entirely correct regarding RAW but I suspect a lot of GMs would question someone playing a 3 INT doctor).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I think an Int 3 person being super-good at a small few things but absolute pants at everything else is the very definition of "idiot savant."

Perhaps look up real-life examples of such for an idea on where to go on that.

Or go watch Rain Man or Forrest Gump?

[Asmotherion]

Actually, it's quite possible to get a decent Int score, even with a -8.

If it's point buy, start with a 16.

-8 for race.

+3 for venerable age.

+5 for level-ups.

+6 for a headband of Int.

+5 for 5 wishes.

+6 for bestow curse.

+6 for greater bestow curse

That leaves you with a 39 Int at level 20, which isn't half-bad at all.

Of course, you could always use a shapeshifting power to get the body without the Int limitations.

Or you could do a body swap with something else, get a double-polymorph any object while in that body to boost your Int score to whatever the form's native Int is, then swap back. Now you're in your original body with a decent Int score.

Or you could use aspect of the wolf to be considered of the Animal type, followed by a Maximized/Empowered awaken spell for a base Int score of 18+(3d6)x1.5.

So, depending on how much effort you want to put in and what your DM considers to be acceptable, you could actually have a really good Int score regardless of your racial penalties.


I just woke up, and my brain still sleeps, but I don't see how bestow (greater) curse would give you a bonus, and how that bonus would stack with one of a spell in the same line.

please explain.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I just woke up, and my brain still sleeps, but I don't see how bestow (greater) curse would give you a bonus, and how that bonus would stack with one of a spell in the same line.

please explain.Did so earlier in the thread. Others disagreed. We agreed to disagree due to not throwing the thread into a metaphorical wood-chipper.

[paddyfool]

What class(es) are you planning to enter with this? (For most classes, you can expect to enjoy just 1 skill point per level... so you can get good at one non-Int skill, or get barely proficient at 6 at level 3)

Also, what benefits does this homebrew race enjoy in return for their Int penalty?

[SangoProduction]

What class(es) are you planning to enter with this? (For most classes, you can expect to enjoy just 1 skill point per level... so you can get good at one non-Int skill, or get barely proficient at 6 at level 3)

Also, what benefits does this homebrew race enjoy in return for their Int penalty?

I was planning to go with a shapeshifting specialized cha-casting with perhaps some mind and illusion powers as well. Spheres of Power. (I was actually thinking of doing a Courage the Cowardly Dog sorta deal to compensate for minimum intelligence.)

Well, it's a race of beast folk, so...I guess the primary benefit is...being a furry, I guess. Also possibly puffing the DM's ego by using his special race instead of regular ol' humans. The "optional" traits each cost -2 int, and if you're not taking the full -8, you aren't getting as much as you can out of it. So obviously take it all!
My choices were +4 Perception, +4 Stealth, and Daze on successful charge attack (ok, that one's actually worth the int hit, and is stupid powerful),

EDIT: Actually, each optional trait also increases physical stats by 1 each. I missed that on the first time round. So I gave it much less credit than it deserved. In fact, that's probably plenty much a trade any non-int-based martial type would make in a heart beat, without any additional augmentations.


+2 strength, - 2 intellegence
Low light vision
30 ft speed
May take up to 3 of the following -2 int for every augment beyond first and +1 to stat of str, con, dex. if you have 2 augments gain back 1d8 hp+level(max5) or 1d12+level(max 10) if you eat fresh raw meat out of combat (1 day, twice at 8th and 3 times at 15)
Bat: The creature gains darkvision to a range of 60 feet. At 8th level, the range increases by 30 feet. At 15th level, the creature also gains blindsense to a range of 10 feet.
Bear: +2 cmb to grapple and +2 cmd against, 8th level +4 cmb to grapple and +4 cmd against +1d8+ strenght as immediate damage, 15th may pin opponent on successful grapple attempt
Boar: +1 attack while charging on successful charge attack daze opponent, 8th level stagger -1 to ac penalty, 15th level stun 1/rd no penalty while charging
Falcon: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Perception checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Frog: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Swim checks and on Acrobatics checks to jump. These bonuses increase to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Monkey: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Climb checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Mouse: The creature gains evasion, as the rogue class feature. At 12th level, this increases to improved evasion, as the rogue advanced talent.
Owl: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Stealth checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Snake: The creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls when making attacks of opportunity and a +2 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity. These bonuses increase to +4 at 8th level and +6 at 15th level.
Stag: The creature gains a 5-foot enhancement bonus to its base land speed. This bonus increases to 10 feet at 8th level and 20 feet at 15th level.
Tiger: Gain extra attack as if dual wielding while equipped with one handed weapon with no negatives to either attack at 1d6 no str bonus, 1/2 str bonus at 8th, full str bonus at 15th
Wolf: The creature gains the scent ability with a range of 20 feet. The range of this sense increases to 40 feet at 8th level and 60 feet at 15th level. The range doubles if the opponent is upwind, and is halved if the opponent is downwind.

[Brother Oni]

Without bothering to do the work myself this (https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/iq-percentile-calculator.php) indicates that IQ 61 and IQ 139 are at the 1/215 level.

Which seems fine for INT 18 but somewhat low for the potential capability of INT 3 (i.e 4 ranks in a knowledge skill + skill focus at level one to be a decent person to ask about the subject) but then as mentioned INT and IQ are not directly comparable.

Note that somebody under 70 IQ is formally classified as having an Intellectual Disability. 61 IQ falls in the category where their learning capability is approximately that of a 9-12 year old child, so they can be nearly fully functional in society.


It seems to me that The Giant's assessment that someone with an INT of 3 can "speak, read, and write a language fluently" is being derived from the common criticism that an IQ score solely means that you're good at taking IQ tests and not an actual reflection of intelligence. It could also be a reflection of not letting real world mechanics intrude on gameplay - being forced to communicate in only grunts would be very tiresome, both for the player and the rest of the group.

Given the average literacy rate in late 15th Century (20% at most) and applying that to the faux-High Medieval period that most D&D worlds have, reading and writing is a rarity, even for people with the 'standard' intelligence range of 9-12. This is despite education being free to the poor (cathedrals were mandated to provide a master to teach boys too poor to pay the fees), as often families couldn't afford to spare the child's time to go study instead of work.

A recent media example; Davos Seaworth from Game of Thrones was a sailor and smuggler, could speak and communicate well, but couldn't read or write.
A real world example; King Henry I who died in 1135, was nicknamed "beauclerc" (good cleric) because he could read. The fact that a king could read being notable in the more typical Middle Ages period of D&D, gives some basis to how rare reading and writing actually was.

[Elysiume]

Honestly, I'd put Courage at a decent amount higher than 3 int. He can clearly understand language fully (although he can't really speak) and can adeptly handle difficult circumstances. Personally, I'd aim for a bare minimum of 6 int. At 5 int you're rubbing shoulders with griffons, morlocks, otyughs, and a pile of rats (https://aonprd.com/MonsterDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Rat%20King), all of which point towards what I think would be stifling to roleplay.

[SangoProduction]

Given the average literacy rate in late 15th Century (20% at most) and applying that to the faux-High Medieval period that most D&D worlds have, reading and writing is a rarity, even for people with the 'standard' intelligence range of 9-12. This is despite education being free to the poor (cathedrals were mandated to provide a master to teach boys too poor to pay the fees), as often families couldn't afford to spare the child's time to go study instead of work.

The idea that medieval peasants didn't know how to read is a myth, actually. Many, if not most, knew how to read and write. In their common tongue, and largely through sounding out the letters. Not in Latin. And not in any standardized spelling. So you'll get stupid stuff like silent u and silent e and silent g and h, and letters like c taking on the sounds of s and k, and k being invented whole cloth. And so on.

Our modern Natural languages are built on timeless periods of people randomly spelling things how they think they should be spelled. It's only in the past century or so that people have truly been making a large scale effort to standardize speech and measurements and what have you.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I was planning to go with a shapeshifting specialized cha-casting with perhaps some mind and illusion powers as well. Spheres of Power. (I was actually thinking of doing a Courage the Cowardly Dog sorta deal to compensate for minimum intelligence.)

Well, it's a race of beast folk, so...I guess the primary benefit is...being a furry, I guess. Also possibly puffing the DM's ego by using his special race instead of regular ol' humans. The "optional" traits each cost -2 int, and if you're not taking the full -8, you aren't getting as much as you can out of it. So obviously take it all!
My choices were +4 Perception, +4 Stealth, and Daze on successful charge attack (ok, that one's actually worth the int hit, and is stupid powerful),

EDIT: Actually, each optional trait also increases physical stats by 1 each. I missed that on the first time round. So I gave it much less credit than it deserved. In fact, that's probably plenty much a trade any non-int-based martial type would make in a heart beat, without any additional augmentations.

+2 strength, - 2 intellegence
Low light vision
30 ft speed
May take up to 3 of the following -2 int for every augment beyond first and +1 to stat of str, con, dex. if you have 2 augments gain back 1d8 hp+level(max5) or 1d12+level(max 10) if you eat fresh raw meat out of combat (1 day, twice at 8th and 3 times at 15)
Bat: The creature gains darkvision to a range of 60 feet. At 8th level, the range increases by 30 feet. At 15th level, the creature also gains blindsense to a range of 10 feet.
Bear: +2 cmb to grapple and +2 cmd against, 8th level +4 cmb to grapple and +4 cmd against +1d8+ strenght as immediate damage, 15th may pin opponent on successful grapple attempt
Boar: +1 attack while charging on successful charge attack daze opponent, 8th level stagger -1 to ac penalty, 15th level stun 1/rd no penalty while charging
Falcon: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Perception checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Frog: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Swim checks and on Acrobatics checks to jump. These bonuses increase to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Monkey: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Climb checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Mouse: The creature gains evasion, as the rogue class feature. At 12th level, this increases to improved evasion, as the rogue advanced talent.
Owl: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Stealth checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Snake: The creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls when making attacks of opportunity and a +2 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity. These bonuses increase to +4 at 8th level and +6 at 15th level.
Stag: The creature gains a 5-foot enhancement bonus to its base land speed. This bonus increases to 10 feet at 8th level and 20 feet at 15th level.
Tiger: Gain extra attack as if dual wielding while equipped with one handed weapon with no negatives to either attack at 1d6 no str bonus, 1/2 str bonus at 8th, full str bonus at 15th
Wolf: The creature gains the scent ability with a range of 20 feet. The range of this sense increases to 40 feet at 8th level and 60 feet at 15th level. The range doubles if the opponent is upwind, and is halved if the opponent is downwind.

+2 strength, - 2 intelligence
"May take up to 3 of the following -2 int for every augment beyond first and +1 to stat of str, con, dex."

It's not actually -8, it's no penalty for the first augment, -2 if you take a second one, another -2 for a third one. It's also +1 Str, Dex, Con for the second and third augment.

So if you take three augments, it's Str +4, Dex +2, Con +2, Int -6.

[Biggus]

Except in this instance it is not two rules, it is one rule and one assumption*.
Assumption: Intelligence 3 means a character is obviously stupid.
Rules: Intelligence 3 characters can be excellent diplomats, doctors, innkeepers, guides etc, and if they put in the time and effort (i.e skill points and feats) be at least passable at mundane activities that they are not naturally suited for.
Conclusion: The assumption is not correct.

Edit: Unless of course there is some rule somewhere I am unaware of, in which case a reference would be helpful.

But the problem is: Int 3 people are, by definition, only just above animal level intelligence. They are, by definition, the lowest 1/216 of the population. So the part that is clearly wrong is to say that they can be a good diplomat or doctor. If the rules on skills say otherwise, it is clearly a case of two parts of D&D not making sense when you combine them, as I said.


I think an Int 3 person being super-good at a small few things but absolute pants at everything else is the very definition of "idiot savant."

Perhaps look up real-life examples of such for an idea on where to go on that.

Or go watch Rain Man or Forrest Gump?

People with savant syndrome are generally incredibly knowledgable or skilled with one single thing. They don't have the complex skill-sets needed to be a doctor or similar, they're nothing like a 20th-level expert dancrilis compared them to.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

People with savant syndrome are generally incredibly knowledgable or skilled with one single thing. They don't have the complex skill-sets needed to be a doctor or similar, they're nothing like a 20th-level expert dancrilis compared them to.I think savant syndrome is for very low Int people with full ranks in 1-2 skills at mid-to-high levels. Spreading them out doesn't exactly fit, though. I have other suggestions that would help, but I'm pretty sure it'd be against forum rules to even mention them.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Right. Um. Level 3. I didn't mention that.

Also, I highly doubt any dm would rule that you can change your mental stats by shape shifting.

*Shapechanges into a wolf, immediately forgetting how or why I shapechanged, and elopes with some random she-wolf that happened by the fight*Fine, since politely pointing out that someone misunderstood something I said is apparently against the rules, here:


Of course, you could always use a shapeshifting power to get the body without the Int limitations.Start as human, polymorph to get the racial abilities of the homebrewed race without the permanent penalties to Int. At no point does your Int go below 3.


Or you could do a body swap with something else, get a double-polymorph any object while in that body to boost your Int score to whatever the form's native Int is, then swap back. Now you're in your original body with a decent Int score.Body-swapping with something else, PAO'ing into a sarrukh (Int 30) and then body-swapping back to your original one at no point reduces your Int to below 3.


Or you could use aspect of the wolf to be considered of the Animal type, followed by a Maximized/Empowered awaken spell for a base Int score of 18+(3d6)x1.5.Nothing about this changes your Int score to below 3.

[dancrilis]

But the problem is: Int 3 people are, by definition, only just above animal level intelligence. They are, by definition, the lowest 1/216 of the population. So the part that is clearly wrong is to say that they can be a good diplomat or doctor. If the rules on skills say otherwise, it is clearly a case of two parts of D&D not making sense when you combine them, as I said.



People with savant syndrome are generally incredibly knowledgable or skilled with one single thing. They don't have the complex skill-sets needed to be a doctor or similar, they're nothing like a 20th-level expert dancrilis compared them to.

I think the problem is the word intelligence conjures up the same impression we have of it in real life - but that isn't want it is in DnD:


Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

That is really all it is - it is not IQ (as I mentioned even as I foolishly brought up IQ), it is not 'ability to lead' or 'common sense' or have any impact on most skills even some fairly technical ones.

Essentially a Low intelligence character can max the Heal skill and have all the information that Heal skill gives them - with 4 ranks and a wis of 16 and a skill focus feat they could at level 1 happilly pass DC 20 checks via taking 10 and happilly treat most poisons and diseases - what they will not be doing is learning that and many other things (at level 1 - but somewhat dependent on class).

If your assumption is that INT 3 is not compatable with that then it stands to reason that your assumption is wrong.


Yes, clearly the most reasonable conclusion is that there are literally no stupid people in D&D. :smallconfused: (Yes, you're probably entirely correct regarding RAW but I suspect a lot of GMs would question someone playing a 3 INT doctor).
I would be more inclined to think of it as part of a whole - where stupidity is more character then stats.

For instance:
A NG Human Cleric with INT 3 and WIS 16 - might have joined a temple early and had a difficult time with lessons but really liked helping people so took to threating the sick and infirm (Heal) and also preached the faith to those who would listen (Diplomacy).
There is no reason that most people who meet them would think they are actually unintelligent - although if you speak to them outside where own focus they are likely to tell you that they don't care about that and never looked into it.
Seperately an INT 18 Wizard might have a plan to summon a demon to have it do his bidding and fail to take proper precautions and be eaten - most people who hear about them will likely think were stupid.

Your stats don't dictate your behaviour only how well you might undertake that behaviour.

Having said all this - what happens at a given table is up to the DM and the players, if they want INT 3 to be similiar to a well trained dog good at what it does but you are not asking its opinion that is fine (the DM could place restrictions on what skill the player could learn to emphasis) - it just doesn't seem to be supported by how the rules operate.

[Batcathat]

You stats don't dictate your behaviour only how well you might undertake that behaviour.

True, but INT 3 should set some pretty hard limits on the "how well" part. I suppose my main issue is the huge jump between INT 2 and INT 3 in your reasoning. INT 2 is literally an animal but INT 3 is a pretty normal person who doesn't do great in school?

[icefractal]

With an decent Wis and Cha, someone with low Int wouldn't necessarily stand out on first meeting them. They could probably operate fine most of the time as long as they stick to what they know. Where it would become more noticeable is when they need to make a plan, deal with an unusual situation, or learn something.

Even then, it doesn't have to be slapstick idiot time. For example, in making a plan, no need to be foolish (that would be low Wis), just make the simplest, most direct plan that could work, without taking the possibility of failure into account or having any contingencies.

Also, with a decent Wisdom, you'd know what activities you're not good at, and look to others for those when possible.

With a -8 (or even -6) you probably are best off dumping it to 3 at the start, and then buying an Int-boosting item and/or raising it on level-ups later.

[Fizban]

I'm glad that a lot of people are focusing on the point of what you know and how that is accomplished mechanically. So I would reiterate:


You know exactly as many languages as the normal minimum for your race, usually common plus a racial language if any.

There is no mechanical penalty to your ability to read, use, or parse language,

You get a minimum of 1 skill point per level, with 4 points at first. This is enough to keep one skill maxed out, or remove untrained penalties for up to four skills (presumably you would not bother putting points in Int based skills). You have half as many skill points as the average commoner (warrior, fighter, etc) of any non-human race, or 1/3 of the average Human commoner.

If you take a class with 6 or 8 skill points, you instead have 2 or 4, for 1/3 or 1/2 as many as the average member of that class.

With a -4 modifier, your chance of having "common knowledge" DC 10 untrained information, decreases from 55% to 35%. Worse, noticeably, but not hilariously.

Similarly, the penalty on all Craft checks means that instead of an 80% chance to succeed on making a wooden spoon, you have a 60% chance. However, you have no penalty on Profession checks, meaning you can sustain any number of possible businesses or broad marketable skills exactly as effectively as anyone else.

Your penalty on Appraise checks means that you have only a 25% chance of evaluating the worth of a well-known or common item, compared to the 45% chance of the average person. The fact that you have next to no chance of evaluating a rarer item simply means that you won't be rolling the wide 50-150% range an untrained success would garner.

Seriously, the mechanical difference is not that much. You probably have exactly the same skill points as an Int 8 character of any non-human race, and more languages than the average Human unless you're in a setting that specifically grants Humans regional languages. The average person when asked a random common knowledge question does not even have twice the chance of answering it that you do- your rate of correct answers there is approximately 60% of theirs.

Think about how easy it is for late-night shows to go out and ask easy questions everyone is taught in school to random people on the street and have tons of them fail. How you can take a larger survey of the same sort of question and get a 30-40% failure rate. You would need to have an extended conversation on multiple topics to even notice that the Int 3 person is failing such a high ratio of common knowledge checks.

An Int 3 person is bad at trivia and The Price is Right, they probably pay to have someone else fix their stuff, and they have a smaller number of refined skills. The former of which most people already consider themselves bad at, so Int 3 is just worse at something most people don't care about. The latter of which you will never even notice unless you actually have them in a situation which requires multiple refined skills- which with average wis/cha, they would know to avoid and would not be bullied into any more easily than anyone else.

And even as someone with poor natural talent, if you stick with your training and become a 1st level PC-classed character in something with 6 or 8 base skill points, sure, you'll only be good at 1/2 to 1/3 as many skills as your peers. Which is still as much or even twice as many as the average person, despite your complete lack of talent in mastering new skills. Int 3 is not a crippling learning disability, and hard work can still put you far above the average person.


And note that there's no reason this can't actually apply to animals either. So they have Int 2 with a -5 modifier. Still get their 1st level feat, 4 skill points, and ability to perform whatever communication their species has (mating signals, hunting behavior, etc). They just don't have as detailed of a base language and require Speak With Animals for someone to get the information they have, and lack the city building and specialized skills that require broader social formation and opposable thumbs. Indeed, the DM runs Int 2, 1, or even Mindless creatures however they find appropriate. A long lived animal raised by and living alongside people as an equal and trained for a task, rather than as a pet, would probably be quite impressive. Ya know, like a gorilla or a parrot or an elephant.

[Psyren]

True, but INT 3 should set some pretty hard limits on the "how well" part. I suppose my main issue is the huge jump between INT 2 and INT 3 in your reasoning. INT 2 is literally an animal but INT 3 is a pretty normal person who doesn't do great in school?

I agree, Int 3 is barely above an animal; you should be practically feral. Roleplaying that might not be impossible but should certainly be difficult.

[hamishspence]

A person can be stupid, and still learn, through being a good student:


Zaranda looked around at her audience, which now included most of her trainees, as well as no few villagers drawn from their naps by the commotion. Her current class, which included Ernico, Fiora, Rudigar, and Bord from Tweyar, comprised not recruits but cadre, the likeliest youths from the villages that had made compact with Star, who would serve as nuclei for other self-defense forces as the protective company began to expand across Tethyr. While it was not part of their regular curriculum, more and more of them had begun to forgo their own siestas to sit in on the lessons Zaranda gave Shield.

The orog was frankly stupid. Yet Zaranda found him a near-ideal student because he persisted doggedly until he had each and every bit of learning cemented firmly in his mind, and he had no scruples about asking questions when he did not understand—and continuing to question until he understood. Routinely, he showed up Zaranda’s young human pupils, much more mentally agile though they were, by dint of ironclad study habits and an innate sense that enabled him to grasp the core wisdom of Zaranda’s teaching. He set such a magnificent example that Zaranda suspected the siesta sessions had become the most effective part of the whole training program.

That's how you have a low Int character that still has a number of points in an Int-based skill.


I was referencing this page (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/BASICS-ABILITY-SCORES/ability-scores/#Intelligence_Int), which lists 3 as being animalistic.

That's Pathfinder, not 3.5. And none of the creatures given as examples were Int 3 anyway - every one was Int 2. Pathfinder still follows the "Int 3 is too smart to qualify as an animal" principle from 3.5:


Animals have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
so that table appears to be just an outlier. For that matter, camels are animals, and are Int 1 - so should be considered "animal-level intelligence" rather than "most basic instincts" which ought to be reserved for vermin.

An accurate version of the table would move "lives by the most basic instincts" down to INT -, and would merge INT 1's description with INT 2's description. INT 4-5's description would become INT 3-5.

In 3.5, any creature with INT 3 or high has "humanlike" intelligence:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#intelligenceInt


An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.

which makes it clear that it should not ever be considered "animalistic" in the way INT 1-2 can be.



I suppose my main issue is the huge jump between INT 2 and INT 3 in your reasoning. INT 2 is literally an animal but INT 3 is a pretty normal person who doesn't do great in school?

Yes.





In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment); speak, read, and write a language fluently; and generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon. This does not describe most real-world people with mental handicaps (to my knowledge). Which means the bulk of the spectrum of mental handicaps probably sits somewhere below 3 and above 2, because it's a system designed for action-adventure and it doesn't need more granularity than that. It doesn't want to have the conversation, and honestly, in this case, I'm inclined to agree. D&D is a system that only describes people within a certain range of mental ability, and OOTS follows suit.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Roleplay wise, a 3 int person could simply be forgetful and absentminded, but perfectly normal otherwise.

Int skills have to do with memorization, for instance. Your character could still be a perfectly normal person who is hopelessly lost when it comes to remembering something he read in a book.

[Batcathat]

Roleplay wise, a 3 int person could simply be forgetful and absentminded, but perfectly normal otherwise.

Int skills have to do with memorization, for instance. Your character could still be a perfectly normal person who is hopelessly lost when it comes to remembering something he read in a book.

As I said earlier, it seems really weird to me that 2 INT means animal intelligence and with just one point more means a normal person who's a little absentminded and a slow learner. A three is an exceptionally low score and that should have a very noticeable impact on a character, I think.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It's not -8, it's only -6.

If he puts 10 on Int he's at 4, if he puts 12 there he's at 6.



I was planning to go with a shapeshifting specialized cha-casting with perhaps some mind and illusion powers as well. Spheres of Power. (I was actually thinking of doing a Courage the Cowardly Dog sorta deal to compensate for minimum intelligence.)

Well, it's a race of beast folk, so...I guess the primary benefit is...being a furry, I guess. Also possibly puffing the DM's ego by using his special race instead of regular ol' humans. The "optional" traits each cost -2 int, and if you're not taking the full -8, you aren't getting as much as you can out of it. So obviously take it all!
My choices were +4 Perception, +4 Stealth, and Daze on successful charge attack (ok, that one's actually worth the int hit, and is stupid powerful),

EDIT: Actually, each optional trait also increases physical stats by 1 each. I missed that on the first time round. So I gave it much less credit than it deserved. In fact, that's probably plenty much a trade any non-int-based martial type would make in a heart beat, without any additional augmentations.

+2 strength, - 2 intellegence
Low light vision
30 ft speed
May take up to 3 of the following -2 int for every augment beyond first and +1 to stat of str, con, dex. if you have 2 augments gain back 1d8 hp+level(max5) or 1d12+level(max 10) if you eat fresh raw meat out of combat (1 day, twice at 8th and 3 times at 15)
Bat: The creature gains darkvision to a range of 60 feet. At 8th level, the range increases by 30 feet. At 15th level, the creature also gains blindsense to a range of 10 feet.
Bear: +2 cmb to grapple and +2 cmd against, 8th level +4 cmb to grapple and +4 cmd against +1d8+ strenght as immediate damage, 15th may pin opponent on successful grapple attempt
Boar: +1 attack while charging on successful charge attack daze opponent, 8th level stagger -1 to ac penalty, 15th level stun 1/rd no penalty while charging
Falcon: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Perception checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Frog: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Swim checks and on Acrobatics checks to jump. These bonuses increase to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Monkey: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Climb checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Mouse: The creature gains evasion, as the rogue class feature. At 12th level, this increases to improved evasion, as the rogue advanced talent.
Owl: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus on Stealth checks. This bonus increases to +6 at 8th level and +8 at 15th level.
Snake: The creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls when making attacks of opportunity and a +2 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity. These bonuses increase to +4 at 8th level and +6 at 15th level.
Stag: The creature gains a 5-foot enhancement bonus to its base land speed. This bonus increases to 10 feet at 8th level and 20 feet at 15th level.
Tiger: Gain extra attack as if dual wielding while equipped with one handed weapon with no negatives to either attack at 1d6 no str bonus, 1/2 str bonus at 8th, full str bonus at 15th
Wolf: The creature gains the scent ability with a range of 20 feet. The range of this sense increases to 40 feet at 8th level and 60 feet at 15th level. The range doubles if the opponent is upwind, and is halved if the opponent is downwind.

+2 strength, -2 intelligence
"May take up to 3 of the following -2 int for every augment beyond first and +1 to stat of str, con, dex."

It's not actually -8, it's no penalty for the first augment, -2 if you take a second one, another -2 for a third one. It's also +1 Str, Dex, Con for the second and third augment.

So if you take three augments, it's Str +4, Dex +2, Con +2, Int -6.

[hamishspence]

As I said earlier, it seems really weird to me that 2 INT means animal intelligence and with just one point more means a normal person who's a little absentminded and a slow learner. A three is an exceptionally low score and that should have a very noticeable impact on a character, I think.

It's the lower limit for playability. Orcs get -2 to Int. Ogres get -4 to Int. Regardless, all PC Orcs or Ogres will be at least Int 3.

[Batcathat]

It's the lower limit for playability. Orcs get -2 to Int. Ogres get -4 to Int. Regardless, all PC Orcs or Ogres will be at least Int 3.

Sure, what does that have to do with anything? I'm not saying a 3 INT character shouldn't be playable, just that it should be very noticable affected by having such a low INT score, not just being bad at memorizing or whatever.

[hamishspence]

The difference is mechanically detectable at low level - but it it can be cancelled out by a few levels.

You can have an Int 3 high level character who knows vastly more about their specialist subject than an Int 18 low level character - but they won't know as much as an Int 18 character who is the same level and degree of specialisation as they are.

[Elysiume]

The difference is mechanically detectable at low level - but it it can be cancelled out by a few levels.

You can have an Int 3 high level character who knows vastly more about their specialist subject than an Int 18 low level character - but they won't know as much as an Int 18 character who is the same level and degree of specialisation as they are.I see where you're coming from, but I think this is more a consequence of mechanics not mapping perfectly to real life than something that should influence how low-int characters are roleplayed. 3 int is the bare minimum for humanlike intelligence, and while there are situations where a 3 int character could more than outmatch an 18 int character in an intellectual pursuit, I don't think that should affect the general question of how 3 int should be roleplayed. A 3 str character could outmatch an 18 str character in combat, depending on level and build. Strength, unlike intelligence, has some nice quantified values: 3 str means that you can't carry 11lbs without being slowed down. They may be skilled at combat, but they're still incredibly weak.

[hamishspence]

A more useful example might be Opposed Checks. What percentage of the time does a Str 3 person beat a Str 10 person in Opposed Checks? For those, character level doesn't come into it.


A Str 3 person might be slowed slightly at 11 lb - but they can still lift 30 lb over their head, and they can still lift 60 lb off the ground and stagger around with it.

A Str 3 person can still run at 4 times their speed with 20 lb on them (though their speed itself is reduced), or 3 times their speed with 30 lb on them.

So - can run at 80 ft per round (20 lb), or 60 ft per round (30 lb).



If a Str 3 person is 1/3 as strong as a Str 9 person - might an Int 3 person be "1/3 as intelligent" as an Int 9 person - taking 3 times as long to solve an Int-based puzzle?

[Elysiume]

I think it's both about speed and cutoffs; I'd maybe compare it to something like clearing a landslide. If it's all 30lb rocks, a character with 18 str can grab an armful of ten rocks per trip while the character with 3 str can only carry one per trip. It'll take them 10x as long to clear the landslide, but they can get there eventually. If it's instead a landslide with 100lb boulders, the strong character can carry three per trip while the weak character is reduced to pushing/dragging one at a time. If the landslide is comprised of boulders that are 155lb each, the strong character can still carry boulders around, but the weak character needs to sit on the sidelines and watch.

Maybe a 3 int character can handle single-digit addition — the 30lb rock of the mental world. If the party has to solve 100 single-digit addition problems, the 3 int character can still contribute, but they're going to be a lot slower than an 18 int character. The question is where you hit the mental equivalent of a 155lb boulder, which I think is going to vary a lot by DM. Personally, based on the monsters in the 3/4/5 int ranges, I'd place it pretty low.

[Nifft]

It's not -8, it's only -6.

If he puts 10 on Int he's at 4, if he puts 12 there he's at 6.

True, but it doesn't really change the fundamental questions.

I still say lean in. Don't put a 10 in your Int, put a 7 or 8 if you can, and let your DM tell you what happens.

This is your DM's experiment, and finding edge-cases with it is helpful.

[Batcathat]

If a Str 3 person is 1/3 as strong as a Str 9 person - might an Int 3 person be "1/3 as intelligent" as an Int 9 person - taking 3 times as long to solve an Int-based puzzle?

Seems reasonable enough, even if it's hard to apply math to something as abstract as intelligence. More importantly, I think, is that a character that only has a third of the intelligence of an average character should be played quite differently. Attributes shouldn't just be mechanics to determine things like skill points and puzzle solving, it should influence how the character's portrayed, especially with such an "extreme" value as 3.

[Nifft]

If a Str 3 person is 1/3 as strong as a Str 9 person - might an Int 3 person be "1/3 as intelligent" as an Int 9 person - taking 3 times as long to solve an Int-based puzzle?

Not really comparable.

Solving a puzzle is more like lifting a heavy object: there will be some that a lower-Int person simply can't solve unaided.

Fortunately there are many forms of aid, including techniques and other tools such that a single person can lift some very heavy objects and solve some very tricky puzzles.

[hamishspence]

Not really comparable.

Solving a puzzle is more like lifting a heavy object: there will be some that a lower-Int person simply can't solve unaided.

Might depend on the puzzle.

Suppose it's a case of "All 3 know their numbers, all three are given Sudoku puzzles to solve - and some practice time to get familiar with the principles."

The Int 3 person consistently takes just over 3 times as long as the Int 10 person, who consistently takes 3 times as long as the Int 18 person.



Solving a puzzle is more like lifting a heavy object: there will be some that a lower-Int person simply can't solve unaided.

"Average" tasks are DC10, "Tough" tasks are DC15, "Challenging" tasks are DC20, "Formidable" tasks are DC25, "Heroic" tasks are DC30.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#untrainedSkillChecks

An Int 3 person is capable of passing INT-based tasks all the way up to Tough, if they're Ability checks rather than Skill checks. If they're Skill checks and they have the skill, they can do better.

[dancrilis]

It is worth noting that an STAT 3 character will equal a STAT 18 character 3% of the time and beat them 16.5% of the time - at any single pure STAT contest (i.e untrained skill checks) that allows for any variable matters.

Assuming my math is correct.

As an seperate example dashing down a door, solving a puzzle, walking a thin beam, etc where the DC is 10 - the stat 18 character will fail 25% of the time and the stat 3 character will succeed 35% of the time - so if your INT 18 character fails to know the answer to an intellectual there is a greater then 1 in 3 chance that the INT 3 Commoner will show them up - if you have 2 of those commoners around the odds shift to greater then 50% the character gets shown up - and if you put 4 of them in a table quiz against the character the character is likely losing that competition.

[hamishspence]

It is worth noting that an STAT 3 character will equal a STAT 18 character 3% of the time and beat them 16.5% of the time - at any single pure STAT contest (i.e untrained skill checks) that allows for any variable matters.

Assuming my math is correct.
That might make more sense for some stats than others.

A Dex 3 person matching or beating a Dex 18 person in a "test of Dexterity" nearly 20% of the time, may make more sense than a Str 3 person matching or beating a Str 18 person in a "test of Strength" (arm wrestle?) nearly 20% of the time.

Because the Str 18 person "lifts" slightly better than 9 times as well as the Str 3 person.

But which makes most sense for Int?

[Nifft]

Might depend on the puzzle.

Suppose it's a case of "All 3 know their numbers, all three are given Sudoku puzzles to solve - and some practice time to get familiar with the principles."

The Int 3 person consistently takes just over 3 times as long as the Int 10 person, who consistently takes 3 times as long as the Int 18 person. Sounds like a bad fit for a single ability check.



"Average" tasks are DC10, "Tough" tasks are DC15, "Challenging" tasks are DC20, "Formidable" tasks are DC25, "Heroic" tasks are DC30.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#untrainedSkillChecks

An Int 3 person is capable of passing INT-based tasks all the way up to Tough, if they're Ability checks rather than Skill checks. If they're Skill checks and they have the skill, they can do better.

Yep, that looks like what I'm talking about.

"Tough" is the line for ability checks beyond which the unaided 3 Int simply cannot grasp.

Skill proficiency might model the sort of technique which I mentioned above; I'd categorize those techniques as aides, which would justify the bonus.


It is worth noting that an STAT 3 character will equal a STAT 18 character 3% of the time and beat them 16.5% of the time - at any single pure STAT contest (i.e untrained skill checks) that allows for any variable matters.

Assuming my math is correct.

As an seperate example dashing down a door, solving a puzzle, walking a thin beam, etc where the DC is 10 - the stat 18 character will fail 25% of the time and the stat 3 character will succeed 35% of the time - so if your INT 18 character fails to know the answer to an intellectual there is a greater then 1 in 3 chance that the INT 3 Commoner will show them up - if you have 2 of those commoners around the odds shift to greater then 50% the character gets shown up - and if you put 4 of them in a table quiz against the character the character is likely losing that competition. For categories where it's possible for the Int 3 character to succeed, I think your math is correct.

Doesn't really help when the check category is Challenging or higher, as mentioned earlier.

[dancrilis]

That might make more sense for some stats than others.

A Dex 3 person matching or beating a Dex 18 person in a "test of Dexterity" nearly 20% of the time, may make more sense than a Str 3 person matching or beating a Str 18 person in a "test of Strength" (arm wrestle?) nearly 20% of the time.

Because the Str 18 person "lifts" slightly better than 9 times as well as the Str 3 person.

But which makes most sense for Int?

The rules do cover this for strenght (and to a lesser extent other matters).

In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger. When two characters arm wrestle, for example, the stronger character simply wins. In the case of identical scores, roll a die.
So a pure contest with no variables in play the higher stat wins - do you know when the earliest sword ball cup was? do you know who was leader of country X in year Y? do you know why country X is called country X? etc there are variables in play there so the INT 3 character will likely get some right the INT 18 might not - and if it is team INT 3 vs INT 18 character then they have a good chance of winning (subject to rules of the competition etc).

[hamishspence]

Being matched against each other makes a difference. Being matched against "the environment" may make it easier for the weak to occasionally beat the strong.

Whether the situation allows taking 10 also matters.




If a situation allows both taking 10 and taking 20, and the DC is right (say, DC16, and INT 22), then the situation may be

"Both people always succeed, but the INT 3 person takes 20 times as long as the INT 22 person, because they take 20 and the INT 22 person takes 10."



If neither is allowed in a particular situation - it's worth remembering that, because a natural 1 is not an automatic failure for skill checks or ability checks, the way it is for attacks/saves, an INT 18 person always passes DC5 INT checks.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Remember that oftentimes, a roll is determined partially by luck. A Str 18 character may fail a check that a Str 3 character passes due to slipping on rough ground and dropping his load, or something. And Taking 10 can seriously skew the numbers. The Str 18 character can Take 10 on Tough checks consistently unless under pressure, while a Str 3 character can't, so the latter will fail much more often.

[hamishspence]

Remember that oftentimes, a roll is determined partially by luck. A Str 18 character may fail a check that a Str 3 character passes due to slipping on rough ground and dropping his load, or something. And Taking 10 can seriously skew the numbers. The Str 18 character can Take 10 on Tough checks consistently unless under pressure, while a Str 3 character can't, so the latter will fail much more often.

Actually you need to be Str 20 to Take 10 on DC 15 checks and always pass - but yes.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Actually you need to be Str 20 to Take 10 on DC 15 checks and always pass - but yes....Right. Just woke up and conflated "minimum roll of 1" with "gets a +1."

I brain dumbly when half-asleep.

Though remember, other bonuses are also a thing, and circumstance bonuses should be applied consistently when under decent conditions and the character takes a moment to set the situation up to have them.

[hamishspence]

It provides a handy line between Stat 18 and stat 20.

Stat 18s cannot fail at Easy tasks (DC5)- even if they're not allowed to take 10.
Stat 20s cannot fail Tough tasks (DC15)- but only if they are allowed to take 10.




Though remember, other bonuses are also a thing, and circumstance bonuses should be applied consistently when under decent conditions and the character takes a moment to set the situation up to have them.

Sometimes they might change the DC instead:


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm

Conditions that affect your character’s ability to perform the skill change the skill modifier. Conditions that modify how well the character has to perform the skill to succeed change the DC. A bonus to the skill modifier and a reduction in the check’s DC have the same result: They create a better chance of success. But they represent different circumstances, and sometimes that difference is important.

[SangoProduction]

Let's recontextualize the question of playing with 3 int. It might shift the argument a little bit.

How would you play it and have fun while doing so?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Let's recontextualize the question of playing with 3 int. It might shift the argument a little bit.

How would you play it and have fun while doing so?"Tell me about the rabbits, George."

[dancrilis]

Let's recontextualize the question of playing with 3 int. It might shift the argument a little bit.

How would you play it and have fun while doing so?

This depends on you and your table.

I would play it as someone who is merely uninterested in things outside of there job - they have no interest in politics, swimming, weapon smithing, piano etc.
They have a very limited skill set which holds there interest and while they can appreciate that other skills are useful they have no interest in learning them.
Other then that I would play them fairly normally - if they need to save the party well that is fine they can figure out sane plans (sneak in an free them, create a distraction etc - are all under Survival for hunting, so under Wis in general), they are not gullible (unless they have low Wis), they know right from wrong and from left and the difference between right and right in that context (fluent in the common tongue), they can lead people and know how to use more complex weaponry then merely a fist, stick, rock etc.

But that is me - you might want someone who forgets their pants, lights the camp on fire while others sleep and they are meant to be on watch etc.

[Fizban]

Let's recontextualize the question of playing with 3 int. It might shift the argument a little bit.

How would you play it and have fun while doing so?
Honestly, looking at how little mechanical deficiency there is, I'd have fun by playing up the fact that my 3 Int isn't really a handicap. If someone wants to claim my character shouldn't know something, I'll gladly roll DC 10 knowledge checks for anything they want (within sanity)- as long as they're required to do the same whenever I demand it in turn. Otherwise I'd just occasionally decide to not be aware of something- and in either case, I would then simply ask what it is (and maybe "forget" it later). Having a character that asks questions rather than relying on their build for everything just means even more justification for being crazy prepared in specific ways. Much more engagement. And if no immediate answer is available, then observe and take a moment to think before acting.

For build- well that depends on the power level. No-spellcraft spellcaster or rogue that knows they don't actually need every skill in the game are perfectly playable, in a game that isn't saying they're not. I want the option of Combat Expertise on Fighters and don't particularly like Barbarians, but a Ranger or Paladin or something, possibly into a PrC with suitably low requirements for more oomph. Also depends on what class tweaks are in play of course.

Now Prestige Class entry, there's your biggest limit.

[jayem]

This depends on you and your table.

I would play it as someone who is merely uninterested in things outside of there job - they have no interest in politics, swimming, weapon smithing, piano etc.
...
But that is me - you might want someone who forgets their pants, lights the camp on fire while others sleep and they are meant to be on watch etc.

It depends on the table.
Even at the dog like scale you still have lots to play with. There's a lot to role play. However you start to become a puzzle piece, getting through the solid oak door is just a matter of persuading you that you need to hit it. Which could work if everyone is prepared to go on with it. If you are playing such low int, low int, you definitely need to speak with them and the DM.

If the understanding is that 40% of the int score is actually 'magic' capability, and 40% 'education', then it could be that there you're fundamentally fine.

[D+1]

3 INT should still be a perfectly playable character or else the bar for what's "playable" (for not just intelligence but ANY ability score) would be set much higher. 3 intelligence should not mean a PC is feral, or an animal, or THOROUGHLY unfunctional. BTB intelligence is simply an indication of "how well a character learns and reasons". Obviously, a 3 intelligence character has minimal learning and reasoning ability. Your challenge then as a player is to simply portray that significant flaw without dragging the whole game down with you by making deliberately DISRUPTIVE decisions for yourself and all the other players. So, look at Intelligence skills (which CLEARLY you're not going to even bother trying to use - EVER...). Appraise, craft (you'll never make ANY stuff), decipher script, disable device, forgery, knowledge (of anything), read lips, scry, search, and spellcraft.

Be ignorant and stupid about things directly related to intelligence when they don't actually matter and when they do, AVOID having your character involved - but DO have your character involved in everything else that they are still good at. So, you know the monetary value of NOTHING, can't create or disassemble anything, have no knowledge of anything beyond what is necessary for the functions of your class, and you freakin' suck at finding things by any means because you don't where to look and don't know HOW to look for them.

It won't be easy simply because YOU as a real person are going to quite naturally slip into having your character doing some of those things whenever those actual skill rolls aren't being called for, but frankly you don't need to be concerned about a "proper portrayal" of minimal intelligence beyond that. CHOOSING to play a character of such low intelligence is a burden that YOU have accepted - it is not a burden that should in any way be passed on to the other players at the table trying to deal with the fallout of intentionally problematic decisions you might make. It also doesn't mean that you should simply avoid having your character interact or participate with EVERYTHING. You're still supposed to be fully engaged and interacting in the game - just NOT in matters that your PC is so exceptionally bad at.