Low (below 10) ability scores and bad DM calls/house rules

[Immabozo]

So I had another thread that, to avoid going off onto a different, but popular topic, am making a separate one for it.

So, it all came from someone asking me why my build had a +4 Int item, on a melee who did not need it in the slightest, for crunch reasons. I told him it was simply to get int up to 10 to avoid playability issues, not crunch reasons. I am playing a half ogre right now with low int and I was running into "You're just too stupid for that thought/conversation/question" things. And it is very, very annoying. My DM even got to the point of "roll a 6 sider, roll three or below and you are unable to ask the question and unintelligent howls and growls come out of your mouth." So thats when I bought a huge +int item.

By the end of the night, when I got mad at the DM, I am surprised it was a shock to everyone why. (This wasn't screaming pissed, this was the "I am obviously not happy with your treatment of me, with a slightly raised voice" angry)

What happened at the end of that session, someone pulled several cards from Deck of Many Things, somehow gambling with the WHOLE party's well being and we got ALL of the negatives and none, (or well, extremely reduced) of the positives. The card was pulled, "Everyone gets 1D4 wishes" but we didn't, the guy pulling the card got 1d4 wishes for each member of the party on their behalf. He wished for me to have a SLA to, 1/day summon a stark naked gnome. I plan to have fun with role play in coming sessions with that, but suffice it to say, I was not amused.

Then, one of the several "You're dead!" cards was pulled. We all died, but instead of a random for no reason TPK, the DM decided we were instead teleported to the plane of chaos and the DM made a list of 20 races and another of 20 PrC, both lists had some really good choices and really bad choices (Any LA was waived for races) and we rolled a D20 and that was our new race and we got a free level in that class, even if we did not meet the prerequs. I went from a LA 0 dwarf to a LA 3 deep gnome, with no LA, which was almost cool, except I lost a size category, which irked me, since that size category not only mattered, was practically everything to my build..

But anyway, so we get to the Plane of Chaos and everyone except me is ok. One of them has amnesia, but everyone is free to operate, except me. I think I'm a rock and a demon is possessing me. No save, no reaction, it just is. I got a little upset.

[Fouredged Sword]

Gigax. Roll 1d100, sometimes you die. Some people love it, some people don't.

Sounds like a bad DM to me. I prefer a story driven game myself. I am of the opinion that any DM who brings out the TDOMT should be one you just walk away from.

If I wanted to play slots I would go play slots.

Your DM needs a lesson in what his goal in the game is (to generate fun) and what the difference is between a element of randomness and a lack of cohesion is,

[Z3ro]

Gigax. Roll 1d100, sometimes you die. Some people love it, some people don't.

Sounds like a bad DM to me. I prefer a story driven game myself. I am of the opinion that any DM who brings out the TDOMT should be one you just walk away from.

If I wanted to play slots I would go play slots.

Your DM needs a lesson in what his goal in the game is (to generate fun) and what the difference is between a element of randomness and a lack of cohesion is,

Must be a group thing. The groups I usually play with, we do this kind of thing all the time. DOMT, rod of wonder, critical hit/miss tables, anything that adds randomness to the game is good for us. A SLA summoning a naked gnome? Sign me up!

But I guess that's just us. In any case, your group should strive that everyone understands what kind of game it is and what everyone's looking to get out of it. If everyone else loves a random, silly game and you don't, that's not so much a bad DM as it is mismatched play styles.

[ddude987]

As a DM I would never penalize a player for a low ability score. Then again my group is pretty good on role play even for a bunch of murder hobos. I think you should talk to your dm out of game and tell him you feel mistreated.

[Sponson]

You didn't seem to finish your story, but as a new DM I have run into the issue of non-arbitrary mental stat allotment. The PHB clearly defines strength, it clearly defines constitution, and it clearly defines dexterity. They are completely measurable and there is no gray area. But mental stats are different. The difference between Strength 9 and Strength 10 is a few pounds of lift. So, then, what is the measurable difference between Charisma 9 and Charisma 10? Why doesn't the PHB tell us?

Low charisma can mean a lot of things, maybe the character is plain and naturally glossed over as unimportant, bad at words, maybe they're just unlikable. Same thing with wisdom and intelligence. You need to define why your mental stat is the way it is.

Was your DM right to force your rp? Well, no. But a STR 16 CHA 8 guy will take hits to his RP just like a STR 8 CHA 16 guy will take hits to his STR. Except STR is measurable. You can say "no, you don't have high enough str, here are the numbers why". Mental stats need to be communicated to the DM.

To prevent problems like this in the future, ask your DM what is the appropriate amount of information that would be available to an Intelligence X character? You can even compare it relative to knowledge a Grade 10 school kid might have.

As a DM I would never penalize a player for a low ability score. Then again my group is pretty good on role play even for a bunch of murder hobos. I think you should talk to your dm out of game and tell him you feel mistreated.

If you don't penalize for low scores, would you would allow a character with Strength 8 lift a boulder to save a commoner that a Strength 18 barbarian would have trouble lifting, even though weight is strictly defined? If you lifted penalization of low scores only to mental stats, what would be the point of allocating mental stats past in-game effects at that point? Having a high DEX on a wizard helps with touch attacks and AC, but having a high CHA on a fighter would do what, past intimidate, if it doesn't impact RP?

[limejuicepowder]

Must be a group thing. The groups I usually play with, we do this kind of thing all the time. DOMT, rod of wonder, critical hit/miss tables, anything that adds randomness to the game is good for us. A SLA summoning a naked gnome? Sign me up!

But I guess that's just us. In any case, your group should strive that everyone understands what kind of game it is and what everyone's looking to get out of it. If everyone else loves a random, silly game and you don't, that's not so much a bad DM as it is mismatched play styles.

Well it sounds like the "random silliness" is falling heavily on the OP's character. Even if I was in a silly game, I wouldn't especially appreciate my character being dumped on to the point of not controlling him.

[Immabozo]

Sounds like a bad DM to me. I prefer a story driven game myself. I am of the opinion that any DM who brings out the TDOMT should be one you just walk away from.

...

Your DM needs a lesson in what his goal in the game is (to generate fun)

We had a player go looking for TDOMT in an underdark city. He is actually a really good DM storyline wise. But the "You guys get next to no positives and all the negatives" sucked.

Must be a group thing. The groups I usually play with, we do this kind of thing all the time. DOMT, rod of wonder, critical hit/miss tables, anything that adds randomness to the game is good for us. A SLA summoning a naked gnome? Sign me up!

I agree, yeah, the SLA to summon a naked gnome will be fun, but I get 1D4 wishes turning into only 1 wish (no roll) made on my behalf by the lying, cheating, deceitful character? Not digging it. The SLA to summon one naked gnome per day is only PART of what I wanted (the whole game, I am trying to get a bag of holding with a never ending amount of naked gnomes in it that my character can throw, and if they have a confusion spell hit them when they hit the floor, even better. If they have a flesh to stone spell on them in the bag and then after they do damage it is reversed, even better!)

You didn't seem to finish your story, but as a new DM I have run into the issue of non-arbitrary mental stat allotment...

Low charisma can mean a lot of things, maybe the character is plain and naturally glossed over as unimportant, bad at words, maybe they're just unlikable. Same thing with wisdom and intelligence. You need to define why your mental stat is the way it is.

Was your DM right to force your rp?

haha, thanks, fixed.

As far as RP, I RP it well, often going OH, I have a great idea, but my character is simly not bright enough for these tactics, never mind." and picking the one character to latch onto and always following him around and listening to his instructions, being gullible, etc. But I got "Hey, I want that item!" and I am forced to roll a D6 to see if my character is intelligent enough to say that. It is beyond unfair. So, no, the forced beyond role playing is unfair.

Well it sounds like the "random silliness" is falling heavily on the OP's character. Even if I was in a silly game, I wouldn't especially appreciate my character being dumped on to the point of not controlling him.

Exactly. I am all for random silliness, but it was to the point of stepping over the line and I was obviously not digging it.

Sorry for the wall of text.

[Darius Kane]

But I got "Hey, I want that item!" and I am forced to roll a D6 to see if my character is intelligent enough to say that.

Why say if you can do? Be a man of action, not of words. You want that item? Take it!

[Yora]

Funny, I was just posting about Intelligence scores on another forum:

An Int score of 6 puts you in the lowest 10% of all people in a human community. That may not be much, but what is refered to as "mild retardation" affects only 2% of all people.
In the lowest 10%, people are still very much capable of finishing secondary school with, if they work for it, a decent degree. Such PCs wouldn't do calculations more complicated than divisions in their head, and likely struggle with a second language. But they wouldn't have any difficulty to articulate themselves in their native language and might even do quite well in a second language if they grew up in a place where it was frequently spoken.

[OzymandiasX]

A character with a 6 Int is an idiot, plain and simple. He should never figure out puzzles, be able to make successful tactical plans, or have clever insights. In a conversation with people of average intelligence they should feel sorry for him.

If you are roleplaying anything smarter than this, then I'd suggest that you work on your roleplaying. I don't mean that in a derogatory, way, just you should own it and have playing it accurately. I wouldn't blame a DM for trying to prevent you from min-maxxing scores and then ignoring the bad scores.

If your character has an okay charisma (a likable idiot), play him as a 'yes man' where he says things to the party members like "Wow, Bob! That is a great plan, I never would have thought of that!" "You guys sure are smart!"

If your character has a low charisma (an annoying idiot), have him object during party discussions, give overly-obvious suggestions that obviously won't work, or continually try to do stupid things. (This can make a party hate you, though, so be careful)


All that said, if your DM is the type who randomly mutates your characters and toss out Decks of Many Things for the heck of it... then perhaps you want a very different kind of game than I'd enjoy...

[Lapak]

Funny, I was just posting about Intelligence scores on another forum:

An Int score of 6 puts you in the lowest 10% of all people in a human community. That may not be much, but what is refered to as "mild retardation" affects only 2% of all people.
In the lowest 10%, people are still very much capable of finishing secondary school with, if they work for it, a decent degree. Such PCs wouldn't do calculations more complicated than divisions in their head, and likely struggle with a second language. But they wouldn't have any difficulty to articulate themselves in their native language and might even do quite well in a second language if they grew up in a place where it was frequently spoken.

This is sound reasoning, right here. Even in the poorly-defined book version of INT 'you can't communicate clearly' is reserved for people in the 3 INT range, not the 6 INT range.

For this reason - and since 'house rules' is part of the thread title, I'll bring it up - I don't try to enforce roleplay based on mental stats, just the actual success of actions taken. I wouldn't tell a player with 6 STR 'you can't try to lift that boulder,' but instead would let him roll and probably fail, so I won't tell a player with 6 CHA 'you're not persuasive enough to make that argument;' I'd let them make a roll based on the argument and probably fail. Keeping mental stats to the realm of already-defined stat checks and skill modifiers only already covers things pretty well without making up new checks on the spot.

In terms of giving people a guide to what it means, I refluffed the INT stat slightly. In my game it doesn't mean 'raw mental ability' but rather 'general educational background.' A high-INT character has a broad base of pre-existing knowledge from self-study or long experience or formal education. The fact that they know more about the world lets them learn new things more easily (skill points) - it's easier to pick up your fifth language than your second, having a idea of how winds, tides and physics work will help you learn to sail, etc. - and when INT checks are called for they aren't trying to come up with a good idea but instead trying to call up a relevant fact or apply their pre-existing knowledge to the problem.

INT, in my system, has nothing to do with 'cleverness' and everything to do with knowledge. So you can have a quick-witted ogre who just doesn't KNOW much - the player can still come up with a good idea, but the character's ability to learn is handicapped by his lack of any education and his ability to make INT-based checks is still lacking.

[Medic!]

A character with a 6 Int is an idiot, plain and simple. He should never figure out puzzles, be able to make successful tactical plans, or have clever insights. In a conversation with people of average intelligence they should feel sorry for him.

If you are roleplaying anything smarter than this, then I'd suggest that you work on your roleplaying. I don't mean that in a derogatory, way, just you should own it and have playing it accurately. I wouldn't blame a DM for trying to prevent you from min-maxxing scores and then ignoring the bad scores.

If your character has an okay charisma (a likable idiot), play him as a 'yes man' where he says things to the party members like "Wow, Bob! That is a great plan, I never would have thought of that!" "You guys sure are smart!"

If your character has a low charisma (an annoying idiot), have him object during party discussions, give overly-obvious suggestions that obviously won't work, or continually try to do stupid things. (This can make a party hate you, though, so be careful)


All that said, if your DM is the type who randomly mutates your characters and toss out Decks of Many Things for the heck of it... then perhaps you want a very different kind of game than I'd enjoy...

Forrest Gump was a good example of a well-played low-intelligence situation without being completely sidelined or "idio-fied."

A low INT with a decent WIS can be someone who just isn't educated, but still very smart and capable of strategizing, conversing, or puzzle-solving. Another way to play low INT without being a useless blubbering jack-in-the-box is to make the right decisions (OOC) for the wrong reasons (IC).
Some bad examples:

Spoiler

Show

I move into flanking position.

No you're too stupid to know that flanking is advantageous.

I'm not doing it because it's advantageous, I'm doing it because I'm pretty sure this [goblin] is a Medusa and I don't wanna turn to stone!

Spoiler

Show

I move under that tree for cover from the flying manticore!

No you don't, you're too stupid to use tactical cover for miss chance!

I'm not doing it for miss chance, I'm doing it because once I threw a rock up in the air and it fell and hit me...I don't want that thing to fall on me!

[Eslin]

A character with a 6 Int is an idiot, plain and simple. He should never figure out puzzles, be able to make successful tactical plans, or have clever insights. In a conversation with people of average intelligence they should feel sorry for him.

If you are roleplaying anything smarter than this, then I'd suggest that you work on your roleplaying. I don't mean that in a derogatory, way, just you should own it and have playing it accurately. I wouldn't blame a DM for trying to prevent you from min-maxxing scores and then ignoring the bad scores.

If your character has an okay charisma (a likable idiot), play him as a 'yes man' where he says things to the party members like "Wow, Bob! That is a great plan, I never would have thought of that!" "You guys sure are smart!"

If your character has a low charisma (an annoying idiot), have him object during party discussions, give overly-obvious suggestions that obviously won't work, or continually try to do stupid things. (This can make a party hate you, though, so be careful)


All that said, if your DM is the type who randomly mutates your characters and toss out Decks of Many Things for the heck of it... then perhaps you want a very different kind of game than I'd enjoy...

I think that's underestimating int 6 a bit. Almost every single member of this forum will give their int as 13+ if asked (such an interesting statistical anomaly) and would agree that in any given group there'd be a few int 14 people - vice versa, we've all met a few int 6 people. Int 6 isn't 'he should never figure out puzzles, be able to make successful tactical plans, or have clever insights.' - it's -2 on a d20 roll. If there's a puzzle with an int check dc 15 to solve, an int 18 character (absolute genius) will solve it on average three times as often as an int 6 character.

He should have tactical plans relating to his fields of expertise, he should have clever insights (just more rarely than a smarter character). Int 6 isn't particularly clever, but it's not stupid enough that his party should be patronising him. I guarantee each person in this thread has had a friend with int 6 that they've held a perfectly interesting conversation with.

[Immabozo]

As far as role play goes, I got that covered. low int, low charisma, decent wisdom, I've latched onto my "friend" (another player) because he has the highest strength and, in my high str, low int character's eyes, the most powerful.

But I agree, the "roll a D6" rule was way underestimating my 6 int (actually, 7, for the character I am talking about).

I figured it kinda like this animal int is 1 or 2, 3 is just sentient, 4 is retarded/mentally handicapped, 5 is functional retard, 6 or 7 is slow, 8 or 9 is the not-quite bright and 10 is the average intelligence of a member of the human race.

[Gildedragon]

Honestly, your DM sounds like a bag of... wonder that produces only rabid polecats, enraged rabid polecats with a vendetta against whoever summoned them.

If people were surprised you were pissed... Have you talked to the DM?

Though getting a free +3LA race isn't bad. There's all sort of things to size ya up
Also: ask how the SLA works. It could let ya summon yourself free of cursed clothing.

[Immabozo]

Honestly, your DM sounds like a bag of... wonder that produces only rabid polecats, enraged rabid polecats with a vendetta against whoever summoned them.

If people were surprised you were pissed... Have you talked to the DM?

Though getting a free +3LA race isn't bad. There's all sort of things to size ya up
Also: ask how the SLA works. It could let ya summon yourself free of cursed clothing.

He certainly has his good points and bad points. I'm not a fan of how he wont give me a magic item I want that is funny, but not amazing. (Bag of holding that is always full of naked gnomes for my character to throw)

I've talked to him a little, but he is hard to get a hold of outside game time.

Wow, I love that idea! I'll find out exactly how it works. I might be able to turn it into a strange 1/day teleport withing eyesight, haha

[Bakeru]

An Int score of 6 puts you in the lowest 10% of all people in a human community. That may not be much, but what is refered to as "mild retardation" affects only 2% of all people.

A character with a 6 Int is an idiot, plain and simple. He should never figure out puzzles, be able to make successful tactical plans, or have clever insights. In a conversation with people of average intelligence they should feel sorry for him.

I love how these posts are in direct succession.

At first, I also thought Ozy was being sarcastic.


Anyway: I agree with Yora. You shouldn't be the brightest one around, and when you're distracted by something else, and suddenly someone start slinging words like "polysyllabic loanword" around, you might ask who Polly Sybille is, because doing so is funny.
But:
Even a cat knows how to stalk prey. Being sneaky, knowing the advantage of cover? If an animal of Int < 3 can learn it, so can you. Wolves use pack tactics. You might not be smart, but you hat lots of practice.
You can talk. Maybe you're unable to use the most eloquent way of phrasing stuff, but you should be able to declare "I want a bag with lots of gnomes in it to throw at people, with always new gnomes in it!"
That doesn't sound as impressive as "I want a use-activated Bag of Endless Petrified Gnomes that return to their natural state upon impact!", but it gets the point across.

What was that Linear Guild (Half-)Orc called again? Tog? You're a lot smarter than him. When actually smart people start talking fast, you probably can't follow and might start some kind of "default action" (smiling and nodding, smiling and nodding, followed by "I don't get it"), but you can hold a basic conversation, and when someone argues with you, it might take him a while to tell the difference between "to stubborn to accept my arguments" and "to stupid to get my arguments" (or "not listening" vs. "not understanding").

If you want to play more stupid than that, that's fine for the rule of funny, but it shouldn't impair you any more than that.

[ericgrau]

If it were one bad ruling I could see trying to fight to get him to stop it. Or putting up with it and adjusting your character to make sure it doesn't apply to you. But it sounds like the DM is making a bunch of bad rulings that are making a mess of the whole campaign world. You may want to move on to another DM.

[Immabozo]

If you want to play more stupid than that, that's fine for the rule of funny, but it shouldn't impair you any more than that.

Yeah, I agree. And I can't get this DM to accept the rule of funny. There is only one character that rule seems to apply to and its not me and it irks me so.

If it were one bad ruling I could see trying to fight to get him to stop it. Or putting up with it and adjusting your character to make sure it doesn't apply to you. But it sounds like the DM is making a bunch of bad rulings that are making a mess of the whole campaign world. You may want to move on to another DM.

If I didn't love my character so, I probably would. As it is, I am gonna try sticking it out.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I think the real problem with mental ability scores is not only the lack of defined consequences for certain scores that Sponson noted, but the lack of a clear, coherent definition for what the ability is supposed to encompass, in general; in addition to there being no clear delineation between different scores in any given mental ability, there are no clear delineations between the abilities themselves. One example of this is the murky area of language, where all linguistic abilities are determined by charisma, but a low intelligence score seems, in most peoples' minds, to preclude eloquent or even intelligible speech. This leads to ludicrous situations where low-int, high-cha characters roll diplomacy checks of, like, thirty and convince their foes to lay down their arms with such timeless exhortations to peace and unity as "Me we am fight all none of elfs but ones who like dragons and not die today." The alternative your DM has put in place, however, doesn't solve the problem, either, both because it's inherently unfair unless similar cross-ability penalties are added for other low scores and because it isn't even necessarily verisimilar, given the ambiguity of the mental abilities. Generally, I would stick to using mental ability scores only for the mechanicals with which they are explicitly associated, and using the player's concept to determine the way their mental ability scores are roleplayed.

Don't even get me started on intelligence, wisdom, and "reasoning." That'll turn into a whole thing.

[TuggyNE]

I think the real problem with mental ability scores is not only the lack of defined consequences for certain scores that Sponson noted, but the lack of a clear, coherent definition for what the ability is supposed to encompass, in general; in addition to there being no clear delineation between different scores in any given mental ability, there are no clear delineations between the abilities themselves. One example of this is the murky area of language, where all linguistic abilities are determined by charisma, but a low intelligence score seems, in most peoples' minds, to preclude eloquent or even intelligible speech. This leads to ludicrous situations where low-int, high-cha characters roll diplomacy checks of, like, thirty and convince their foes to lay down their arms with such timeless exhortations to peace and unity as "Me we am fight all none of elfs but ones who like dragons and not die today." The alternative your DM has put in place, however, doesn't solve the problem, either, both because it's inherently unfair unless similar cross-ability penalties are added for other low scores and because it isn't even necessarily verisimilar, given the ambiguity of the mental abilities. Generally, I would stick to using mental ability scores only for the mechanicals with which they are explicitly associated, and using the player's concept to determine the way their mental ability scores are roleplayed.

This, with the further note that a lot of people find caricatures of low-mental-score characters funny. That's fine until they run into someone who doesn't find it so amusing for their character. (The real reason Thog talks so clunkily in OOTS: Rule of Funny, nothing more.)

[Phelix-Mu]

This, with the further note that a lot of people find caricatures of low-mental-score characters funny. That's fine until they run into someone who doesn't find it so amusing for their character. (The real reason Thog talks so clunkily in OOTS: Rule of Funny, nothing more.)

I agree with this chain of thought.

Further, I feel that role play and mechanical advantage should be somewhat segregated. The Int 6 character can role play smart, but any actual Int-check will statistically reveal to everyone that there isn't much going on up there. A character can act like whatever the player wishes, but one should try to realistically approach how low-Int, low-Wis, or low-Cha people would act. A person with Int 6 is more than smart enough to know that there are many people smarter than them in the world, and thus such a person often sensibly stops behaving as though they know everything.

The real problem is the interaction between the mental stats, as mentioned. People often latch onto one thing or another, but the truth is that unless your character is packing really terrible stats in all three mental stats, then coping is probably possible, and the DM is out of line forcing weird "roll d6" stuff. People of average wisdom and low intelligence realize that they aren't smart, and take time to consider stuff before relying on their math skills, logic, etc, or better yet, ask someone smarter. A charismatic fool can talk around the fact that he has no idea that he's acting like an ass (he asks the widow out on a date after the funeral, and mysteriously she says yes).

Thus, mental stats are full of built-in mitigation, and you have to be quite to stupid fool jerk to routinely go around spouting nonsense, convinced it's the truth, much to the frustration of everyone. Smart people don't spout nonsense (but might spout sense, much to everyone's frustration). The wise don't spout, and the wise would only speak in certainty, aware that words can have great impact. The charismatic would spout sense or nonsense alike and still manage to be appealing and magnetic (this can be difficult to role play, but I think most of us are aware that such people most definitely do exist).

[Theprettiestorc]

You know, I had a Lizardfolk Monk I was playing for a bit. 6 Int, and the party gave her **** about being able to plan something, or talk coherently.

The problem is, if you take, say...the average human. Or average person in general. A plain, all-around commoner would have 8s across the board. So a 6 is just a bit less knowledgeable, and less apt. Although my Monk was the type to think with her fists, smashing doors open and busting secret panels in walls when the rogue tried six times to pry them out, and failed. She punched a floor trap that kept sending darts out, attempting to disable it by busting it, but she just got a whole pile of darts for her efforts. And she almost trapped the party in the dungeon by kicking in a door-mechanism, when everyone was arguing about how to work it.

She rolled a natural one on that attempt, so she overbalanced and busted her tail. But it's okay! She was a Drunken Master anyway. =3.

Anywho. Charisma means two things to me - force of personality, and looks. But overall, it's your influence. You can have an 8 charisma, and be rather fetching, but have a stutter and be nervous. At the same time, you could have prominent scars on your face, missing an eye, looking like you came out of a bugbear's *******, and have an 18 Charisma. Be grizzled. People can follow someone who's got sheer force of confidence. At the same time, you can have 8 Charisma, and put the Ugh in Ugnaut, and just be quiet and stoic. Not one to speak up.

Wisdom kinda equates to common sense to me, sometimes, but also to taking your time. You can still have a high wisdom and jump the gun, if you've thought it out, albeit quickly. Or have low wisdom, and start pitching tactics that may not be entirely that great. "Is it wise to attack head-on?" "Er...well, I know that he's got a blind spot right here." You can be smart, but unwise. So Wisdom and Intelligence can compensate for each other, a bit. Wisdom also means how observant you are - so being distracted by shinies is more of a low-wisdom thing.

Anyway, don't take that crap from your DM and party! Tell them you're offended! Even a less-than-average intellect works, because you might not know a lot, but you know where the pointy end of the stick goes, and you know enough to rely on the knowledge of others.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

One of my favorite characters, actually, had an eighteen charisma not despite, but because she was so ugly. Half her teeth or more missing, her face more scar than not, alibinism and the sun conspiring against her complexion, a missing eye, most of an ear missing and the other left to cauliflower and chaos, a nose better described as a mess of cartilage with some nostrils, and an omnipresent necklace of ears, and, of course, absolutely no-one, no-one, ever questioned an order or instruction she gave.

I mean, she also had, like, a bajillion extra feats in exchange for being an albino with listen penalties and terrible depth perception, and all those feats went to teamwork and tactics, but she still had to make people listen, and I roleplayed it as her face making people listen. Her charisma wasn't being pretty or nice, it was being a person who made everyone shut the hell up and listen because, my Lord, Snake Plissken and Nick Fury as a tag team would pee themselves looking at her.

[Bakeru]

Adding to what Veisu said:
Let's have a look at the opposite side of the spectrum.
Let's think of a stereotypical dumb blonde (I mean no offence to actual blondes, especially not to those that aren't dumb, but I need a stereotype).
Very pretty, but would you follow such a person as your leader? Would you take such a person's arguments serious? Could a stereotypical dumb blonde convince you to change your opinion just by her force of personality?
Such a person would look pretty, but still have no charisma. The only ones who'd follow such a person would be hormone driven teenagers, and everyone knows they have a huge wisdom penalty on their sense motive rolls.

[AttilaTheGeek]

What a 6 INT means depends on how the rest of the world is statted. According to Anydice:

• If everyone is generated with 3d6, then a 6 is in the bottom 10% of people. As mentioned before, this is really not a big deal.
• If 4d6b3 is used for everyone, then a 6 is in the bottom 3%. Personally, I'd call that noticeable, but not crippling.
• If for some reason you generate everyone with 5d6b3 (maybe you view every commoner as a potential PC in their own right, or it's just a really high-power game), a 6 is in the bottom 0.8% of people. If the average stat array for a commoner is 13.4, then you probably can't articulate with a 6.

[Eldariel]

6 Int is fairly low; it's been suggested that in D&D, a point in Int about equals to 10 IQ, which would place it at 60 IQ. That's well below what counts as a "mentally challenged person" (apparently it's historically about 70 IQ), which, according to Wikipedia, would limit him to reading and mathematical skills of an average 9-12 year old. He'd still capable of learning self-help and eventually understanding artificial systems such as local mass transit (in modern day world) though.

However, as Attila mentioned, he'd be in bottom 10% of people which would place him at IQ 80 or so, which wouldn't be that problematic. Well, that article is what I was reading anyways; I suppose it does little good to paraphrase it here but it should be broadly applicable since IQ and Int score measure broadly similar things.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, I already posted above, and it was all cogent, but I had a few other thoughts I wanted to mention.

I usually view Intelligence of 6 as being around the intelligence of a modern-day kindergartner.

- Language skills are fine; you can say enough to communicate pretty much anything clearly, although maybe taking your time, as the specific word for the specific thing might not come quickly.

- Counting and numbers exist, but are fairly primitive. This is doubly true for in-game stuff, because many societies in-game never teach maths to everyone, and some never teach it to anyone. But simple counting is known.

- Reasoning: Risk and reward are understood, although accurate gauging of both of these is a matter of Wisdom. Strategy is possible, but is largely down to a matter of experience (there is nothing notably wrong with the general memory of a person with Int 6...dangerous or traumatic events are recalled easily...only less memorable stuff should require Int-checks to recall). Improvisational skills are not fully developed, but mimicry and such are well-developed, so the person is decent at copying what someone else has shown them how to do (as long as it's a simple process). Abstract language and complex instructions may be problematic, though.

- Memory: This is a matter that often comes up in games. An unintelligent character is trying to recall some important plot point. The relevant thing to consider, in my mind, is the attribution of significance to details. The brain stores information of all kinds, but it's interconnection of details and the recall process that intelligence measures. In my mind, a very unintelligent person will automatically remember anything dealing directly with survival (traps are VERY dangerous...that last one hurt like a sonofa^&%$#). Details that didn't seem important at the time, though, can be difficult to recall later, and thus a check is called for. Abstract problem solving and plot intrigue may be beyond the Int 6 character, though with proper Sense Motive or perception checks, the same problem may be solved via alternative means (this merchant is lying...wait...he's not trustworthy...just like that other guy...etc).

Anyway, that is my take on it. I like to think of real-life examples, and the average human child is a pretty easy metric to reference.

On a related note, does anyone have a source (official or 3rd party) for ability adjustments for immature creatures? This used to be a thing for some races in 2e, and it's incredibly useful stuff for setting up a realistic society (just what work can those kids do, how much can they lift, how much do they weigh, etc).

[Bakeru]

However, as Attila mentioned, he'd be in bottom 10% of people which would place him at IQ 80 or so, which wouldn't be that problematic. Well, that article is what I was reading anyways; I suppose it does little good to paraphrase it here but it should be broadly applicable since IQ and Int score measure broadly similar things.

If we go by "Int 6 ~ lowest 10% ~ IQ 80" (which I think is a pretty good comparison), then this is a relevant wikipedia article. Basically, slow learner, problems with abstract thinking, but can easily blend in and handle day-to-day stuff good enough on their own.

So, flanking and cover should still be obvious concepts to a char with that. He might, however, need a moment to understand that it doesn't help to flank a slime, or that ghosts don't care if you have cover (unless it's a force effect).

[Douglas]

6 Int is fairly low; it's been suggested that in D&D, a point in Int about equals to 10 IQ, which would place it at 60 IQ.

If you're going to equate Int to IQ, do it right. Assuming 3d6 as the "general population" distribution, the standard deviation of Int is about 3. The standard deviation of IQ is 15. The averages are 10.5 and 100, respectively. Each point of Int away from 10.5 corresponds to 5 points of IQ away from 100. 6 Int matches 77.5 IQ.