PDA

View Full Version : 3 int?



BIGMamaSloth
2010-11-03, 07:04 PM
Im going to be a half orc barbarian and will be having three intelligence. Ive role played 6 or 5 intelligence but i could use some help really figuring out what to do with 3 int.:smallsmile:

RufusCorvus
2010-11-03, 07:08 PM
Grunt and drool a lot. 3 Intelligence is only slightly above a dog or a horse. You can speak, but you'll probably be worse at it than your average caveman.

Morph Bark
2010-11-03, 07:09 PM
Grunt and drool a lot. 3 Intelligence is only slightly above a dog or a horse. You can speak, but you'll probably be worse at it than your average caveman.

Especially since your average caveman (assuming Neanderthal) has an average Int of 8 or 9.

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-03, 07:19 PM
You probably have a hard time using two or more words in a row. You can't follow complex instructions, and take everything in the most literal way possible. You don't understand how anything works, which is why you enjoy smashing things so very, very much. Your grasp of morality--as well as the motives of others in general--is extremely primitive, so you tend to seperate people into categories like "friend" and "smash" and don't understand when the Paladin says you can't smash someone who isn't your friend. Hopefully, you have someone in the party who you've put your complete trust in, so they can help you make decisions that are above your ability to contemplate. If somebody asks you a question, don't be afraid to shrug and say "I dunno."

Callista
2010-11-03, 07:19 PM
Not necessarily dumb as a brick; not if you look at the odds.

My impulse is to do this by the numbers. If you assume that the D&D world is populated by people who roll on 3d6 for stats, then the number of people who roll a 4 or lower is (4/216), or 1 in 54 people. (There's one way to roll a 3 and 3 ways to roll a 4, and a total of 216 possible 3d6 combinations.)

So you're looking at being the lowest INT in any average group of 54 people, basically the guy at the bottom of your high school homeroom. If you're looking at IQs, that's about 60 to 70, or the very top part of mild cognitive disability. This group of people, in adulthood, is living on their own and working to support themselves, usually at a relatively simple job, and will probably have a vocational diploma with the equivalent of about a sixth-grade education, plus possibly a certificate program. If you met them you would know they weren't especially bright, but it wouldn't be particularly obvious.

So you don't have to play them as extremely dumb; you've got more leeway than being forced to play a "cave man".

BIGMamaSloth
2010-11-03, 07:25 PM
wow thanks a lot i was probably thinking ten dumb as brick thing but that last one put some new ideas in my head too!

Galsiah
2010-11-03, 07:37 PM
if you posted your other mental stats, we could probably give you a better overview of how to play this guy's 3 int right

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-03, 07:40 PM
You're about as smart as a Tarrasque, a Grey Render, a Tendriculos, a Grick, or a Basilisk. If the behavior of the Grick can be seen as representative, teamwork is probably slightly problematic for you. Most of the example monsters seem fairly single-minded, focused entirely on their hunting drive, save for the Grey Render and its bonding patterns.

BlueWizard
2010-11-03, 08:10 PM
This can be fun... I usually ended up getting my dumb PC killed doing something stupid. But, then I really got into my characters.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-11-03, 08:14 PM
If you assume that the D&D world is populated by people who roll on 3d6 for stats...

You can't do that though; there's the standard and elite array of stats for a reason.

Leecros
2010-11-03, 08:23 PM
Ahh, reminds me of a Wilder i played once. She had an int of 6 and would run around shouting "Heal! Heeeaalll!!" whenever someone got injured despite not actually having a healing spell and got powers based on how 'pretty' she could make them look.

as far as PC's go she was one of the least effective characters i've ever played , but she was entertaining to play...

After awhile she went on to be an Anarchic Initiate... Lemme tell ya, people who are not smart should not be allowed to pierce reality and punch a 10ft hole into the outer plane of Limbo...

Coidzor
2010-11-03, 08:40 PM
Well, you can think of him as a phenomenally stupid human ala Fallout/Arcanum or as a very intelligent ape. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29)

Although, debateably, the great apes are probably more accurately modeled as 5-6 Int in D&D.

A griffon is smarter than you though.


You can't do that though; there's the standard and elite array of stats for a reason.

Well, you can, the standard and elite array of stats are for when the DM doesn't want to roll for stats and wants to take a "typical" example.

Jallorn
2010-11-03, 09:17 PM
You probably have a hard time using two or more words in a row. You can't follow complex instructions, and take everything in the most literal way possible. You don't understand how anything works, which is why you enjoy smashing things so very, very much. Your grasp of morality--as well as the motives of others in general--is extremely primitive, so you tend to seperate people into categories like "friend" and "smash" and don't understand when the Paladin says you can't smash someone who isn't your friend. Hopefully, you have someone in the party who you've put your complete trust in, so they can help you make decisions that are above your ability to contemplate. If somebody asks you a question, don't be afraid to shrug and say "I dunno."

A few of these stray into the realm of Wisdom and Charisma. Int is cleverness and book-smarts.

Depending on your other stats, I feel that you should play him as rather childlike. That is, he just simply doesn't understand a lot. if he has a high Wis, he should be aware of this, though he's also probably very perceptive of others as well in that case. Basically, he's dumb, he knows just about enough to get by, and even that is a little questionable. He is almost certainly going to be acting mostly on instinct, rather single minded, and very unthinking, so bad at planning.

Leecros
2010-11-03, 09:18 PM
Well, you can, the standard and elite array of stats are for when the DM doesn't want to roll for stats and wants to take a "typical" example.

well technically a DM can do anything he/she wants.


there was a guy in my one group(we took turns DMing a campaign) and five minute into every story he started an asteroid hit the planet and everyone died. Rocks fall, everyone dies FTL


it got annoying to the point where we just quit letting him DM...because we'd spend half an hour making characters only to have them die five minutes later...

Coidzor
2010-11-03, 09:42 PM
well technically a DM can do anything he/she wants.


there was a guy in my one group(we took turns DMing a campaign) and five minute into every story he started an asteroid hit the planet and everyone died. Rocks fall, everyone dies FTL


it got annoying to the point where we just quit letting him DM...because we'd spend half an hour making characters only to have them die five minutes later...

How, pray tell, does having characters running around who've had their stats rolled translate into rocks fall, everyone dies, no one has any fun, change DMs?

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-03, 09:48 PM
How, pray tell, does having characters running around who've had their stats rolled translate into rocks fall, everyone dies, no one has any fun, change DMs?

I don't think those were meant to be related.

Susano-wo
2010-11-03, 10:05 PM
I'd have to second or third the "you are not book smart, but depending on wisdom, you might have a lot of intuition with high WIS, and strong personality with high CHA.

You can look at other INT 3 critters for int level, but I much prefer a generalized view of it. It allows you to play the char you want. THe 3 INT is represented, and is a situational as well as statistical disadvantage, but doesn't need you to figure out exactly how smart int 3 is.

Incidentally: what are the lowest range of INT 4 monsters? since even going with strict INT 3 is X mentality, you can be anywhere up to the border of INT 4

(oh, and just because something is 1 number higher, does not *necessarily* mean that its just a little bit better. To put it a differnt way, you could say you are 1.5x smarter than the smartest animal (animals are way smarter than DnD gives them credit for, even by human standards, but that's another discussion)

Claudius Maximus
2010-11-03, 10:15 PM
Just watch Forrest Gump. Maybe be a bit dumber than that, but not too much. Your character should at least be functional, but dumb as a brick.

Lev
2010-11-03, 10:23 PM
Barbarian with low int = Animalistic
http://www.focusonfantasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Princess-Mononoke.jpg

Most people can't even fathom how someone with low int functions because of the negative connotations that people have with it in society.

It's just more simple, don't be calculated-- but that doesn't mean be a buffoon, it just means add less steps involved in your actions. There is a large clarity to having low Int, less to get in the way of the application of Wis.

The wizard might stop and plan things out, but the Barbarian knows what needs to happen now, he can sense the situation out and see the answer, not that he has all the right information, but he can easily make an A to B plan, but maybe never an A to C to B plan.

Leecros
2010-11-03, 10:38 PM
How, pray tell, does having characters running around who've had their stats rolled translate into rocks fall, everyone dies, no one has any fun, change DMs?

the point i was making was

well technically a DM can do anything he/she wants.

followed up by a personal experience of this phenomenon happening


the secondary point is that while there is the standard and elite array of stats. Does not mean that a DM has to use it and could very well roll up whatever NPC he/she wants....even every villager if he really felt content to. Granted i'm not sure why one would since you would be rolling all day long...but i have seen stranger things.



that should answer your question unless i didn't understand it correctly.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-03, 11:15 PM
3 is, basically, as dumb as a person can get. They don't really have a Past or a Future, they live in the the ever present Now. They might intuitively make some good judgement calls (high wisdom), they might have other people drawn to follow them (high charisma), but they don't plan this. They rarely plan anything; they just Do. The line between action and thought for them is blurry, and impulsive would be a good description of them. If someone angers them, they will let them know and rarely with words. The refined, but pointless, things will probably just frustrate them, like almost any form of manners and taboo. Polite society will consider them crass, brutish and savage, and will probably be right.
You want to play (alignment) dumb? Well here's your chance because three intelligence is dumb.

Ragitsu
2010-11-03, 11:17 PM
The Joker has Int 3?

Illithid Savant
2010-11-03, 11:34 PM
Just curious, but why do you have 3 intelligence?

Callista
2010-11-04, 12:07 AM
You can't do that though; there's the standard and elite array of stats for a reason....which is mostly convenience. Do you really want to roll stats for every Random Joe NPC? It's impossible to convert the standard array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11) to anything like IQ anyway; that array has a standard deviation of 0.55, and a score of 3 on that scale, converted to an IQ bell curve with a standard deviation of 15, is equal to an IQ score of -105... which is negative, and obviously nonsensical because the variance is too low. Real people are a lot more variable than that.

If you use the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), then you end up with a mean of 12, which is 1.5 points higher than the mean of 3d6, and a standard deviation of 2.6. Assuming an SD15 IQ scale with IQ 100, and correcting for the artificially high mean so that it falls at 10.5, you end up with an IQ conversion of 57.

3d6 has a standard deviation of 3.24, and results in an IQ score of 65 for an INT of 3.

I'm assuming that you are using an average stat value of 10.5, not 12; so, basically, if you want to use the elite array, your conclusions aren't all that much different from the 3d6 version unless you're going to say that 12 INT (which gives a bonus) is average.

Whether you're using an IQ of 57 or 65, there really isn't that much difference in how it plays out, and it is not cave-man grunting in either case.

Not that you couldn't, if you wanted, play it like that; I mean, hey, it's your character. I'm just saying you don't *have* to, especially if you've done the nerdy statistics on it.

Ragitsu
2010-11-04, 12:23 AM
Just curious, but why do you have 3 intelligence?

I saw the question.

Then, I saw the avatar.

I smiled.

Amiel
2010-11-04, 12:31 AM
You'll be driven by primal instinct and have an extremely short attention span; you'll keep looking at and attending to shiny things.
You'll also keep messing up with any instructions given; to you, the most straightforward approach is the best approach.
You'll also probably engage in repetitive actions. As in, repetitive, repetitive actions.

busterswd
2010-11-04, 12:52 AM
Wisdom would also affect your behavior.

High Wisdom means you have good intuitive understanding. Think idiot savant: you've got the right instincts to function at your life's calling (so you're naturally good at fighting, etc.) and can sense when people are upset, angry, a threat, etc. from their tone/poise, but you're not the best at vocalizing your thoughts nor does abstract thinking really do it for you.

Medium Wisdom probably means you're like Lenny from Of Mice and Men. You know people want you to do things and will go through the motions, but don't understand why they get upset when you do them wrong. If you're evil, you're probably closer to a sociopath and what others want of you just doesn't matter.

Low Wisdom... well, you're a little braindead, and probably close to a mindless brute/savage. You do what your body wants, when it wants it, and are incapable of questioning it.

TroubleBrewing
2010-11-04, 08:25 AM
... you tend to seperate people into categories like "friend" and "smash"...

... Can I adopt this for a signature? This was seriously the funniest thing I've read in a while.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-04, 08:48 AM
Incidentally: what are the lowest range of INT 4 monsters? since even going with strict INT 3 is X mentality, you can be anywhere up to the border of INT 4

The smallest elementals are INT 4, as are Nessian Warhounds, Gibbering Mouthers, Chimeras, Chokers, Shadow Mastiffs, Udoroots, and Prismasaurus. Very clear ability to use tactics and prioritize targets, with (in the Chimera's case) the ability to understand the concept of flattery. Still quite simple-minded.

Person_Man
2010-11-04, 09:08 AM
Hulk/thog Smash!!!

Thrawn183
2010-11-04, 09:16 AM
Don't forget a rogue with 3 Int could still learn and be fluent in every language in the entire world.

jiriku
2010-11-04, 09:54 AM
Two things you can do to roleplay this well:

1) You don't follow complicated discussions very well, so when the party or an NPC starts going on about something, just stop paying attention. Your character doesn't have a clue what they're blathering about, so if you as a player just don't listen during long conversations, it's easy to roleplay.

2) You can't really draw conclusions from evidence. You're likely to repeat mistakes a lot, because when you fail, you can't tell what you did wrong. Likewise, you might draw hilariously incorrect conclusions. For example, if you walk into a town and buy a bag of apples from a street vendor, and afterwards an NPC approaches you the party with a job offer, you might conclude that purchasing apples triggers job offers, and go buy a bag of apples whenever you're looking for work. If no one offered you a job after you bought the apples, you'd tell your party it was time to move on to a new town, because clearly there's no work to be found in this one. If a party member asked you to look for work during the winter, you'd think he was a colossal idiot: how can you look for work when no one has apples to sell?

grimbold
2010-11-04, 02:31 PM
you can have a LOT of fun w/ low INT
try to limit your IC speech to monosyllabic vocab.
you have difficulty w/ things like opening up jars and you end up smashing them in your anger
ask important NPCs to explain their monologue again because you dont get it (great way to RP and tick off the DM)
Practice saying 'I dunno'
You dont neccesarily have to smash every body who is not your friend but you will probably be paranoid.
You will use your strength to solve all problems.
you follow all instruction with out any questions (unless you have high WIS, really knowing your WIS and CHA would help)
You may die a young IC death at the hands of a trap you did not want to check for.

Also-This reminds me of a cleric i once played who was only known as "Stupid-(insert grammatically correct expletive of choice here) Cleric" as he often healed the wrong guy because he had sustained magical wounds and so was not bleeding. Also i prayed for damage only spells pretty much unless explicitly told otherwise.

Eloel
2010-11-04, 02:57 PM
*snip*

"Standard" array, which is used for the "average" guy (people who are not specifically good at something), is 10 10 10 11 11 11. Average is 10.5, no bonuses nor penalties (hence the name, average).
NPCs who are exceptional at something (most likely respected or feared by the locals) use 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. But that is the exception, rather than the norm. So, for "normal" people, lowest Int possible is 8. And even that is very rare.

That makes a 3-int guy stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. He barely is above a dog in intelligence, and indeed, has the same penalty as the dog. So, think trained Golden Retriever. Fetch, attack (yeah, retriever & attack is laughable. Sue me.), come, go, sit, sleep etc. I don't think he can even talk, merely make sounds that may make sense to it, and would eventually be learned by his party.

Mikka
2010-11-04, 03:06 PM
I've never allowed any of my players to play a character with less than 8 intelligence. With 8, you're not too bright, but you're still capable of communicating and relating to most things.

When you go lower you have a character who (played correctly) will cause endless amounts of problems with his lacking ability to understand and relate to even the most basic things. As alot of people have said, you have the intelligence of a dog. . please do yourself and your party a favor and get a higher intelligence.

The other alternative is just 'cheating' and just playing your intelligence 3 as 'stupid' which in my book would be the same as fiddling your str 10 character to mysteriously have +5 to hit and damage in melee for some reason.

Lev
2010-11-04, 03:32 PM
I've never allowed any of my players to play a character with less than 8 intelligence. With 8, you're not too bright, but you're still capable of communicating and relating to most things.

When you go lower you have a character who (played correctly) will cause endless amounts of problems with his lacking ability to understand and relate to even the most basic things. As alot of people have said, you have the intelligence of a dog. . please do yourself and your party a favor and get a higher intelligence.

The other alternative is just 'cheating' and just playing your intelligence 3 as 'stupid' which in my book would be the same as fiddling your str 10 character to mysteriously have +5 to hit and damage in melee for some reason.
Mind you that someone's personality is split into 3 mental facets, just because someone can't see the big picture in a plan doesn't mean they can't communicate well or understand the instructions.

Communication is under the realm of Cha, relation is not under Int Wis or Cha but is simply background history-- you could be a genius and still have your head so far up in the clouds that stepping out of your books and going on an adventure might be the most fish out of water situation you could fathom.
In fact, relation if I was forced to rule it, would fall under Wisdom, an infinitely more important mental stat in terms of roleplay. It governs the depth of information available to be digested, instead of just the speed at which you can do it. A slow character might even think up that brilliant plan, and he might be able to voice it and take command, but that doesn't at all mean he has an efficient and complex thinking process. This is not "cheating".

Callista
2010-11-04, 03:40 PM
It's not cheating; it depends on how you see INT 3.

Okay, let's look at it from another angle: INT-based skill checks.

A character with INT 3 has a modifier of -4 to his checks.

Craft:
He can hit a DC of 16 on a roll of 20, and his average roll will be a 6.4. Taking 10, he can craft simple items (the PHB includes a wooden spoon as an example); and if he has good tools and is working together with someone else (Aid Another action), he can hit a DC of 10 reliably and make his living as a craftsman, creating typical goods (the PHB mentions an iron pot as an example). If he is particularly lucky and industrious, he could even create a more complicated item like a crossbow.

Decipher Script:
He can't hit a DC 20 on this one, untrained, but it's a trained skill anyway. If he puts four ranks into it and gets help from someone, he has a chance of translating a simple message, like maybe a simple substitution code.

Disable Device:
Give him some time, and he can hit a DC 10 to jam a lock or DC 15 to sabotage a wagon wheel--all simple tasks that take some thought. He shouldn't be disarming traps; but then, neither should his INT 10 fighter buddy.

Forgery:
This is an opposed check, so your character, with his -4 penalty, will fail against an average opponent about 70% of the time. However, it's still not impossible for him to fool someone with a false document, if they are unlucky enough to roll low.

Knowledge:
On average, your INT 3 character will make a DC 6 check, so he'll know how to answer only very easy questions--a little more than half of what is considered "common knowledge" (DC 10). He still has a chance, if he trains the skill at all, of knowing basic information in a specialized field (I think of DC 15 to be something like what you'd learn in high school, something most people wouldn't remember but a good number would--for example, the capital of Greece or how a thunderstorm forms).

Search:
He's not particularly good at this, like all INT-based skills, but he can take 20 and hit a DC 16, so it's not as though he's completely oblivious. The DC to "ransack a chest full of junk to find a certain item" (in six seconds, presumably), is 10. If the character takes his time, he'll always be able to do this.

Spellcraft:
Put some ranks in it, and it's not impossible for him to identify spells while they're being cast, though it's quite difficult. If he's level 1 and has four ranks in Spellcraft, then he's got a one in four chance of hitting the DC 16 to identify a Magic Missile being cast.

OK then... You see the above, yes? This isn't cave-man; it's more like Forrest Gump, maybe a little less intelligent than that, but not by much.

Nachtritter
2010-11-04, 03:42 PM
Don't forget a rogue with 3 Int could still learn and be fluent in every language in the entire world.


Yes, he could grunt and stammer out half-formed words in every language across the globe!

Seriously, though, if you've got a 3 int, you're basically just a walking battering ram at best, or an animalistic predator at worst. If you have a high wisdom, you can offset this by being a CUNNING animalistic predator, but forget trying to form words or consider higher concepts like "tableware," "manners," or "bathroom."

jiriku
2010-11-04, 03:45 PM
OK then... You see the above, yes? This isn't cave-man; it's more like Forrest Gump, maybe a little less intelligent than that, but not by much.

"Jenny, I am not a smart man, but I know what XP is." :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-11-04, 03:48 PM
"Adventuring is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." :smallamused:

Callista
2010-11-04, 03:53 PM
"Jenny, I am not a smart man, but I know what XP is." :smallbiggrin:I laughed out loud. Really. :)

I should probably say that I'm not trying to force people... not saying that the ONLY legitimate way to play INT 3 is more like mild/moderate cognitive disability. I mean, it's your game, your character, your fun, right? If you want to play The Barely Sentient Cave Guy, go ahead, and it doesn't really matter all that much if the skill checks and statistics don't match up; after all, this is a world where you can throw fireballs with your brain. But I have to add this possibility, and show that it's legitimate, because I don't think you should feel you had to play it that way or else you were "cheating".

Nachtritter
2010-11-04, 03:56 PM
That actually leads to an interesting question from the other end of the spectrum - how do you guys play characters with an absurdly HIGH intelligence, like the wizard who lucked out and got 18 INT and keeps plugging points into it until he's smarter than three Steven Hawkings?

Callista
2010-11-04, 04:05 PM
In general, I think you'd play them like geniuses with whatever their personality was going to be anyway, and let the skill checks do the rest. The wizard knows about the monster that nobody on their plane has ever seen before because he deduced its existence from the laws of extraplanar energy. He identified that ancient text in a language he's never seen before, because he's just that good at breaking codes. A very high INT can make people somewhat distant from others, and occasionally forget that other people have to have things explained.

But they don't necessarily have to be so obviously smart. I recently read an interesting book on gifted kids (and we're talking hyper-gifted, like the kind that learn to read when they're eighteen months old), and often times, it seems like they actually hide their abilities so that they can fit in more easily--don't answer questions in class, deliberately get a lower grade on the test--so that their intelligence won't intimidate others. (That it should be intimidating was puzzling to me; I love little kids, especially smart ones; but then I realized that most likely others would assume that if you were smarter you were going to lord it over them or make them look stupid.)

Stephen Hawking... I'm gonna say he's about INT 21, 22 or so, a very high-level Expert. Has to be able to answer questions that nobody's answered before, which I'd put at DC 30, like making the leap to figure out that black holes evaporate. (Also very good writer. Have you read his general-audience stuff? Fascinating, and a high-schooler can understand it. Which is what I was when I did, and still in love with physics ever since.)

Nachtritter
2010-11-04, 04:10 PM
See, that's how I normally play them - although I'll often throw in a few ten-dollar words, make up some arcane babble if I'm playing wizards/sorcerers/magical types, or occasionally have them say "it's complicated, and you simply don't have the means to understand it."

The latter never seems to go over well when I use it with ruler-types, for some reason... :smallwink:



Stephen Hawking... I'm gonna say he's about INT 21, 22 or so, a very high-level Expert. Has to be able to answer questions that nobody's answered before, which I'd put at DC 30, like making the leap to figure out that black holes evaporate. (Also very good writer. Have you read his general-audience stuff? Fascinating, and a high-schooler can understand it. Which is what I was when I did, and still in love with physics ever since.)

I'm a fan of Stephen Hawking, but I confess I haven't read much of his recent stuff. Not enough time, and too much else to think about. That said, A Brief History was an amazing read, and I keep meaning to go through it again one of these days!

NeoRetribution
2010-11-04, 04:13 PM
...how do you guys play characters with an absurdly HIGH intelligence, like the wizard who lucked out and got 18 INT and keeps plugging points into it until he's smarter than three Steven Hawkings?

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080525104823/stargate/images/0/00/Meredith_Rodney_McKay.jpg

mangosta71
2010-11-04, 04:21 PM
I envision a character with 3 int being like Draak from the fantasy theme of Irregular Webcomic (irregularwebcomic.net). From his character blurb (relevant part bolded):

Draak is a lizard man from the mysterious swamps of the East. Or the South. Nobody's quite sure, but they're pretty mysterious. Lambert has hired him as a bodyguard. He speaks in monosyllables, which means he understands words like "death", "kill", "quark", and "gene", but not words like "mercy", "water", or "hygiene".

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080525104823/stargate/images/0/00/Meredith_Rodney_McKay.jpg
You RP extremely intelligent characters as Canadians? :smallconfused:

Coidzor
2010-11-04, 04:21 PM
That reminds me. If someone took the Humanoid Trainer feat, they could use Handle Animal on you. :smalleek: Okay, so it's (Creature Type) Trainer, but, hey, it's fill in the blank on the type, only stipulation is less than or equal to 4 int....
Stumbling upon that feat sorta gave me an idea for the Drow, actually...

Part of the problem here seems to be that people think Int 8 is functionally mentally retarded when it's probably more subpar intelligence. I'd put legally mentally retarded (I believe it's defined in the U.S. as about IQ 60) as about Int 6. About this point it gets problematic to model after real life because at this point and below (and sometimes above it too) there's other problems which muddle the ability to gauge intelligence and the ability of individuals to perceive and interact with the world around them.

Eldaran
2010-11-04, 04:31 PM
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080525104823/stargate/images/0/00/Meredith_Rodney_McKay.jpg

I play my neutral or good wizards like McKay, but that's mostly because he's so awesome. He's the perfect arrogant intellectual hero.



You RP extremely intelligent characters as Canadians? :smallconfused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_McKay

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-04, 04:41 PM
That actually leads to an interesting question from the other end of the spectrum - how do you guys play characters with an absurdly HIGH intelligence, like the wizard who lucked out and got 18 INT and keeps plugging points into it until he's smarter than three Steven Hawkings?

Because looking up SRD monsters is easier than thinking...
Intelligence 21 is the domain of the ancients. Titans, the Kraken, Hoary Hunters... despite your puny mortal lifespan, your mind is expansive. Similarly, Intelligence 22 (and upwards) is on par with outsiders such as the Planetar - your capacity to understand the universe is similar to the capacity of incarnations of its Platonic ideals.

Susano-wo
2010-11-04, 04:42 PM
+1 to calista's comments. That's pretty much my point. Play the character, don't take falws that aren't really flaws, but don't hamstring yourself just because you have a low score.

There is wiggle room in my philosophy, but basically its like htis:
Physical Stats: keep relatively straightforward, with the exception of STR..my muscle structure is whatever I envision it to be, as long as its not more than the actual str.
Mental Stats:I pretty much play the character I want, and don't worry about stats, to a degree, and especially if I am playing lower than my listed stat. I'm not going to be hamstrung into playing a genius spellcaster, or an all-wise, all-perceptive cleric, just because I need that casting stat up.

My big thing is that I don't want to be told, essentially, that I can't play this character, not because the mechaics don't support it, but because, byt the mechaics my stats (that have nothing to do with teh concept) require the character to be X,Y,orZ

*disclaimer: I am trying to put into writing the jumble of priorities that I use, mostly subconsciously/by gut feeling, so I reserve the right to backpeddle or clarify^ ^

Calmar
2010-11-04, 05:40 PM
Two things you can do to roleplay this well:

1) You don't follow complicated discussions very well, so when the party or an NPC starts going on about something, just stop paying attention. Your character doesn't have a clue what they're blathering about, so if you as a player just don't listen during long conversations, it's easy to roleplay.

I definitely see your point, but I don't think a DM is going to be happy about with a player.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-04, 06:25 PM
I definitely see your point, but I don't think a DM is going to be happy about with a player.

Furthermore, if somebody in your party is playing a high-INT character, he might need the help of the other people in the party (e.g. you) to simulate the character's problem-solving skills when faced with a puzzle.

Callista
2010-11-04, 06:28 PM
I think you as a player should be listening, even when your character isn't, so that you can have the character misunderstand or forget things in the funniest or most interesting possible way.

A low INT score is a weakness just like the sorcerer's low AC or the fighter's low Will save. Don't be afraid to RP it as a real weakness instead of as just comic relief. But don't think it gets you out of RP to begin with; that'd be silly--why else would you take on a challenge like a low-INT character unless you wanted to role-play it? I mean, besides min-maxing badly and in a ridiculous fashion, which I'm assuming you're not doing because if you were you'd have had people glaring at you long before Page Two of the topic.

Speaking of the mechanics, you are aware that Touch of Idiocy will drop you in one hit, right? Make sure you prepare for that. If you're fighting a spellcaster worth his salt, he'll have it prepared if he knows anything at all about your team.

Susano-wo
2010-11-04, 06:33 PM
even aside from humor potential, not paying attention, dpending on the group can be frustrating for everyone else for a number of reasons, including:
if you do find out the info, you have to be told it again, when sometimes its better for gameplay and drama, etc to just 'info dump'
It can create situations where you become distracting, but that depends on your temperment, etc.
Some groups have a hard enough time keeping everyone paying attention to the game...like mine for instance. We have a lot of side conversations, and that works...sometimes. Sometimes, due to people A. starting to not pay attention even to the basics of what is going on, so they have no idea what is happening in the game, B. people who are doing things and trying to pay attention get unintentionally distracted (like me :smallredface: I try to pay attention, but you bring up One Piece around me, and tis allll over. Damn I love that manga)

BUt whatever works, I suppose :P

SensFan
2010-11-04, 06:45 PM
+1 to calista's comments. That's pretty much my point. Play the character, don't take falws that aren't really flaws, but don't hamstring yourself just because you have a low score.

There is wiggle room in my philosophy, but basically its like htis:
Physical Stats: keep relatively straightforward, with the exception of STR..my muscle structure is whatever I envision it to be, as long as its not more than the actual str.
Mental Stats:I pretty much play the character I want, and don't worry about stats, to a degree, and especially if I am playing lower than my listed stat. I'm not going to be hamstrung into playing a genius spellcaster, or an all-wise, all-perceptive cleric, just because I need that casting stat up.

My big thing is that I don't want to be told, essentially, that I can't play this character, not because the mechaics don't support it, but because, byt the mechaics my stats (that have nothing to do with teh concept) require the character to be X,Y,orZ

*disclaimer: I am trying to put into writing the jumble of priorities that I use, mostly subconsciously/by gut feeling, so I reserve the right to backpeddle or clarify^ ^
I wouldn't enjoy that type of game at all, personally. It would destroy any semblance of versimilitude if the Wizard who could memorize dozens of spells isn't very smart, and the fighter who is the best swordsman in the town runs out of breath easily. I don't see the point of writing down an Intelligence score, if you're not going to play someone with 18 as the smartest guy anyone you speak to has ever met.

Saph
2010-11-04, 07:25 PM
My big thing is that I don't want to be told, essentially, that I can't play this character, not because the mechaics don't support it, but because, byt the mechaics my stats (that have nothing to do with teh concept) require the character to be X,Y,orZ

I think this is a good way to do it. Your mental stats do represent your character, but there's a lot of room for interpretation and a high or low score can be roleplayed in lots of different ways.

Lev
2010-11-04, 07:36 PM
...how do you guys play characters with an absurdly HIGH intelligence, like the wizard who lucked out and got 18 INT and keeps plugging points into it until he's smarter than three Steven Hawkings?
Steven Hawkings? Psh, what a minmaxer.


http://www.crimeculture.com/Images/09_sherlock-holmes.jpg

Sherlock Holmes: "You don't need a 3 dimensional spot check later if you have a 4th dimensional spot check now."

http://files.myopera.com/MellowMello/albums/751865/1DeathNoteL3.jpg

L: First we have noms, then we make a plan.

http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content09/dr-who-sonic-screwdriver.jpg

Dr. Who: Nuff said.

Nachtritter
2010-11-04, 07:38 PM
Steven Hawkings? Psh, what a minmaxer.


http://www.crimeculture.com/Images/09_sherlock-holmes.jpg

Sherlock Holmes: "You don't need a 3 dimensional spot check later if you have a 4th dimensional spot check now."


I think I love you.

Callista
2010-11-04, 07:41 PM
I wouldn't enjoy that type of game at all, personally. It would destroy any semblance of versimilitude if the Wizard who could memorize dozens of spells isn't very smart, and the fighter who is the best swordsman in the town runs out of breath easily. I don't see the point of writing down an Intelligence score, if you're not going to play someone with 18 as the smartest guy anyone you speak to has ever met.Uhh... Actually, 18 INT is not "the smartest guy anyone you speak to has ever met". He's "the smartest guy in your graduating class", if you live in a small town and your graduating class has 216 people in it. Now, he may be ultra-intelligent or he may just be very bright; but when you just have a distribution from 3 to 18 to work with that people can be born with, then the top number has to include the entire top half percent of the human race, which happens to be everything from run-of-the-mill gifted to the Einstein-level brilliant that only comes along once in a century.

So you actually have a great deal of leeway with the 18, just like you do with the 3.

I kind of doubt that if you're trying to play a realistic character that you'd be playing a wizard as "dumb" anyway; it's not logical that someone who can learn spells wouldn't be good at academics because in D&D they're basically the same thing. If you're going to do that and don't want to shatter suspension of disbelief, then you should be playing a sorcerer or a cleric or some other non-INT-based class.

You can, however, play a wizard who doesn't lecture on magical theory, who doesn't seem intelligent upon first meeting, or who doesn't meet the stereotype of "smart". You can even play a wizard that lacks common sense and street smarts, or who seems dumb because he's not good at communicating, or even who is seen as mentally challenged by people who don't know him. But "dumb wizard" is a contradiction in terms.

When we're talking about playing a character and not a collection of stats, remember that a collection of stats actually doesn't really dictate all that much about what the character can be; but all the same, you don't have infinite leeway. You have to create a character that could actually, logically, exist.

Sherlock Holmes: INT 18, WIS 18. Very lucky with the dice...

Saph
2010-11-04, 07:49 PM
When we're talking about playing a character and not a collection of stats, remember that a collection of stats actually doesn't really dictate all that much about what the character can be; but all the same, you don't have infinite leeway. You have to create a character that could actually, logically, exist.

It's worth remembering that when people actually try to assign stats to well-known characters, the results often vary all over the place. I remember one conversation a year or so back where we tried to stat up Harry Dresden. The estimates of his mental stats were all over the map. The only thing everyone could agree on was that he had about an 18 in Constitution.

So you really have quite a lot of leeway in how you choose to roleplay a character: there's very little consensus on what a given score does or doesn't mean.

Susano-wo
2010-11-04, 08:40 PM
what a minmaxer! hahhahaha!:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

@SensFan: um, I think you are taking it a bit to the extreme. I said to a degree.:smallsmile:
What degree that is depends on the stat and the character.
Greatest swordsman that ever lived? Well, I'd better have the STR, CON, and possibly DEX to mechanically represent that! I wouldn't be ok with crappy con on that character. Conversely if my concept is a superbly skilled swordsman, but not the beefiest guy on the block, I don't want to have to nerf my to hit and damage just because my concept isn't that he is big and brawny. If there is a good way to do the char with less STR, fine, but in DnD, there's not (finess requires a feat, so I'm sacking feat to do it, and still doesn't help with damage

But meleers are the easy ones...casters. Maybe my character is just naturally tuned into magic? he doesn't have inate power (sorc) but magic comes easily to him. He's an otherwise average guy. Not a moron, but not a genius (or maybe he's an idiot savant with magic, that works too). The point is, I need high INT to be a good wizard. I don't want to have to play a genuius/supergenius just because I want to be a wizard.

Clerics. With how hight their wisdoms are, you'd expect that fanatacism would be nonexistant...:smallwink: Maybe my cleric isn't very wise, makes rash decisions, whatever. but...see Wizard

and finally, maybe my CHA caster doesn't hae a strong personality, magnetism, whatever. maybe he's just your average joe schmo. Except that arcane energy springs to his fingertips

Does that make more sense now? If stats were purely representations of personal characteristics, that had no other effects on gameplay than what those personal characteristics would actually have effect on, I am cool with insisting that people play their character according to their stats. BUt especially in magic, and even with melee there are cases where it simply isn't so.

Also, I agree with Saph that due to the abstraction on Ability scores and what they mean, as well as having a hard time pinning down what X score really means, there is a lot of wggle room either way

One last note: nothing about INT 3 says that you cannot speak morethan a few words of language. You are a fully sentient, fully communitcative being. You may not be able to spell or use antidisestablishmentarianism, but you can talk just fine. Thus, a rogue with 3INT can learn every language in the world, if the crazy player is so inclined :smallwink:

SensFan
2010-11-04, 08:53 PM
Uhh... Actually, 18 INT is not "the smartest guy anyone you speak to has ever met". He's "the smartest guy in your graduating class", if you live in a small town and your graduating class has 216 people in it. Now, he may be ultra-intelligent or he may just be very bright; but when you just have a distribution from 3 to 18 to work with that people can be born with, then the top number has to include the entire top half percent of the human race, which happens to be everything from run-of-the-mill gifted to the Einstein-level brilliant that only comes along once in a century
First of all, my graduating class had 14 people in it :smallwink:
And I don't agree with your way of distributing stats. I don't agree that the average NPC has 3d6 for his 6 stats, it just doesn't work that way. Even the 'Elite' people have their best stat as a 15. I don't buy that Joe the Plumber has a 1:3.6 chance of having a stat above 16.

Callista
2010-11-04, 09:15 PM
I don't buy that Joe the Plumber has a 1:3.6 chance of having a stat above 16.

Why not? A +4 or -4 to a stat isn't enough difference that it's either extremely disabling or extremely advantageous. The range you get just from chance is the 20 points on a d20, which is just over twice the range you get from stat modifiers.

So the outcome of what you're trying to do, if you're depending on your own natural ability instead of training, will depend over twice as much on pure chance as it does on your untrained talent.

And you're trying to make the range of natural ability even narrower than that? People aren't all the same, and it's just not realistic to assume that everybody but a handful of special people has Elite or Standard array stats.

SensFan
2010-11-04, 10:05 PM
Why not? A +4 or -4 to a stat isn't enough difference that it's either extremely disabling or extremely advantageous. The range you get just from chance is the 20 points on a d20, which is just over twice the range you get from stat modifiers.

So the outcome of what you're trying to do, if you're depending on your own natural ability instead of training, will depend over twice as much on pure chance as it does on your untrained talent.

And you're trying to make the range of natural ability even narrower than that? People aren't all the same, and it's just not realistic to assume that everybody but a handful of special people has Elite or Standard array stats.
Elite people have a 15 as their best stat. You're telling me that more than a quarter of Average Joes are better at something than every single Elite person?

Ozymandias9
2010-11-04, 10:09 PM
In general, when looking at world-building demographics, I prefer to treat each point of ability score bonus or penalty as indicating one standard deviation with the mean at 10.5.

A score of 10 to 11 is no bonus, so 0<n<1σ. This covers 68.2% of the population.

12-13 and 8-9 are + or - 1, so 1σ<n<2σ. This covers an additional 27.2% of the population.

14-15 and 6-7 falls in 2σ<n<3σ. This covers 4.2%

16-17 and 4-5 falls in 3σ<n<4σ. At his point we're down to .2% of the population (that's 1 person in 500).

18 and 2-3 would be 4σ<n<5σ. This is a pitteling 0.0063% of the population: only slightly more than one person in 20,000.

By this measure, you're going to find someone with a 3 or 18 in most cities. But you're probably not going to have gone to school with one.

Callista
2010-11-04, 10:14 PM
Elite people have a 15 as their best stat. You're telling me that more than a quarter of Average Joes are better at something than every single Elite person? You're basing everything on it being called the "elite array"?

It's called the "elite array" because it's equal to the standard point buy for PCs. It's simply a way to "produce characters with at least a decent score in every ability that's important for the character's class" which is "faster than the standard point buy method and good for creating characters quickly". Note that the DMG calls the 14 and 15 in the elite array merely "decent".

It's the "elite array". Not "elite people". There's a difference. The elite array is a shortcut; it doesn't reflect the way the (simulated) world works. Or are you telling me that no one can be "elite" unless they are worse at something than the standard-array commoner?


In general, when looking at world-building demographics, I prefer to treat each point of ability score bonus or penalty as indicating one standard deviation with the mean at 10.5.

A score of 10 to 11 is no bonus, so 0<n<1σ. This covers 68.2% of the population.

12-13 and 8-9 are + or - 1, so 1σ<n<2σ. This covers an additional 27.2% of the population.

14-15 and 6-7 falls in 2σ<n<3σ. This covers 4.2%

16-17 and 4-5 falls in 3σ<n<4σ. At his point we're down to .2% of the population (that's 1 person in 500).

18 and 2-3 would be 4σ<n<5σ. This is a pitteling 0.0063% of the population: only slightly more than one person in 20,000.

By this measure, you're going to find someone with a 3 or 18 in most cities. But you're probably not going to have gone to school with one.This is... arbitrary. Why would one point of bonus automatically be a standard deviation? Why not use the standard deviation of 3d6, the way random characters are generated?

SensFan
2010-11-04, 10:28 PM
Oh, I see. You're basing everything on it being called the "elite array".

It's called the "elite array" because it's equal to the standard point buy for PCs. Other than that, it's simply a way to "produce characters with at least a decent score in every ability that's important for the character's class" which is "faster than the standard point buy method and good for creating characters quickly". Note that the DMG calls the 14 and 15 in the elite array merely "decent".

It's the "elite array". Not "elite people". There's a difference. The elite array is a shortcut; it doesn't reflect the way the world works. Or are you telling me that no one can be "elite" unless they are worse at something than the standard-array commoner?

This is... arbitrary. Why would one point of bonus automatically be a standard deviation? Why not use the standard deviation of 3d6, the way random characters are generated?
By your logic, what percent of the average population has 13 or more Strength? What about 14 or more? I have follow-up questions once you answer.

Coidzor
2010-11-04, 10:31 PM
This is... arbitrary. Why would one point of bonus automatically be a standard deviation? Why not use the standard deviation of 3d6, the way random characters are generated?

well, the bonus is the functional difference between two individuals.

However, people's stats are fundamentally altered as they grow more experienced. Also, older. So, some way of dealing with this is necessary as well.

Callista
2010-11-05, 12:22 AM
The bonus is the "functional difference" between two individuals, but standard deviation is just a measurement unit; it doesn't represent any special jump in ability. The normal curve is continuous.


By your logic, what percent of the average population has 13 or more Strength? What about 14 or more? I have follow-up questions once you answer.Strength is easy--you'd just have to match the carrying capacity limits to real-world strength. Unlike INT, there's an actual chart (PHB page 162) that matches different STR scores to how much you can carry. So you'd just need to gather some data on how much people can lift, match it to the chart, and do the math. I don't have that data, so I can't really figure out where the charts match; I did check out stats for Olympic weight lifters, and apparently they're pushing a strength score in the lower 20s.

Susano-wo
2010-11-05, 05:33 AM
elite/standard array/1pt deviation is no more arbitrary than 3d6.

especially once you start using different standards for different stats :smallsmile:

Calmar
2010-11-05, 06:05 AM
Clerics. With how hight their wisdoms are, you'd expect that fanatacism would be nonexistant...:smallwink: Maybe my cleric isn't very wise, makes rash decisions, whatever. but...see Wizard

Yeah, the problem with Wisdom is that greater "wisdom" in reality means greater goodness. I quess "emotional intelligence" and something like "analytical intelligence" would be more appropriate to describe what Wis and Int, respectively, are supposed to represent.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 07:20 AM
wow thanks a lot i was probably thinking ten dumb as brick thing but that last one put some new ideas in my head too!

You should pick around 25 words that you know and understand, and about 10 words you use and don't quite understand.

i.e. Proboscis: Probably. xD

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-05, 07:42 AM
Open up your Dungeon Master's Guide. Go to page 110. Look at the right column, under the section "ELITE AND AVERAGE CHARACTERS". Look at the third sentence.

Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don't get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die.
Additional potentially relevant information is found in the vicinity of this quote, but I find it relatively unimportant to the discussion at hand. Readers are encouraged to view the primary source themselves while debating the topic, as my judgment of relative importance is fallible.

hamishspence
2010-11-05, 07:51 AM
But what proportion of NPCs, will have the Standard Array, or the Non-Elite Array?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-05, 08:03 AM
But what proportion of NPCs, will have the Standard Array, or the Non-Elite Array?

The only information I can find on those arrays is in the Monster Manual, where it is stated that the standard array is used for monsters and the non-elite array is used for humanoid warriors. In the absence of further information, the answer would likely be about 5%, as that represents the proportion of warriors in settlements. Alternatively, the lack of information might suggest that no comprehensive answer can be given and the question must be posed to individual DMs, but that's not the sort of thing conducive to a forum discussion. :P

hamishspence
2010-11-05, 08:08 AM
There's also Arms & Equipment Guide- which uses the Standard Array for all normal hirelings.

Cityscape tends to use a mix of slightly modified Standard Array, and Elite Array, for its sample warriors, adepts, aristocrats, experts, and so on.

Eloel
2010-11-05, 08:17 AM
The only information I can find on those arrays is in the Monster Manual, where it is stated that the standard array is used for monsters and the non-elite array is used for humanoid warriors.
This you mean?

hamishspence
2010-11-05, 08:21 AM
Nope- Elite Array is for monsters with PC class levels, rather than NPC class levels.

Elite Array runs 15 to 8.
Non-Elite Array runs 13 to 8.
Standard Array is 11s and 10s.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-05, 08:27 AM
It's good to remember the arrays are still based on probabilities of 3d6 roll; standard array is 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, because the average result of a 3d6 roll is 10.5. It's a shorthand for 'average joes' to DMs, an excerpt of the population who have all average scores. Likewise, Elite array is shorthand for 'special joes', excerpt of people who rolled well.

It's pretty darn obvious these two arrays are not meant to cover the whole population.

Also, for the last time, in modern D&D, ability scores are not the extent of character ability! Levels, feats, flaws, traits, classes, skills and equipment exist solely to create greater variance between characters. A person with 18 Int is not the world's smartest person if he's only level 1 Commoner with Illiterate flaw; a 10 INT level 1 Expert with Educated feat has him beaten on every level.

Stop misusing the base ability scores, dammit!

hamishspence
2010-11-05, 08:48 AM
It's good to remember the arrays are still based on probabilities of 3d6 roll; standard array is 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, because the average result of a 3d6 roll is 10.5. It's a shorthand for 'average joes' to DMs, an excerpt of the population who have all average scores. Likewise, Elite array is shorthand for 'special joes', excerpt of people who rolled well.

It's pretty darn obvious these two arrays are not meant to cover the whole population.

Don't forget the non-elite array- according to Arms & Equipment Guide, any ordinary hireling you hire will have it.

It's just that these three arrays might cover enough of the population, to skew it away from what you might expect if you assumed every member of the population rolled 3d6.

grimbold
2010-11-05, 11:11 AM
forget trying to form words or consider higher concepts like "tableware," "manners," or "bathroom."
this made me smile

and callista the same stuff would apply to a dog w/ int of 1.
this is a slight logical fallacy that a dog could forge a document with any degree of success

also what will be interesting is having NO skill points

SensFan
2010-11-05, 02:57 PM
Strength is easy--you'd just have to match the carrying capacity limits to real-world strength. Unlike INT, there's an actual chart (PHB page 162) that matches different STR scores to how much you can carry. So you'd just need to gather some data on how much people can lift, match it to the chart, and do the math. I don't have that data, so I can't really figure out where the charts match; I did check out stats for Olympic weight lifters, and apparently they're pushing a strength score in the lower 20s.
By definition, the same number of people have X Int as have X Str.
Anyone with 14 Str is capable of bending iron bars.
Anyone with 16 Str is capable of bursting chain bonds.
Anyone with 18 Str is capable of breaking down iron doors.
(Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm))

I'm just asking; did you have someone in your graduating class that could break down iron doors? I'm guessing that's a no.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-05, 03:08 PM
Anyone with 14 Str is capable of bending iron bars.
Anyone with 16 Str is capable of bursting chain bonds.
Anyone with 18 Str is capable of breaking down iron doors.

What the hell? That's not how ability checks work. Anyone with 18 Str is capable of bending iron bars (on a natural 20). Anyone with 22 Str is capable of bursting chain bonds. Anyone with 26 Str is capable of breaking down iron doors (and incidentally, is capable of casually breaking the world record for squats, if the world record I'm looking at is correct)

jiriku
2010-11-05, 04:04 PM
Uhh... Actually, 18 INT is not "the smartest guy anyone you speak to has ever met". He's "the smartest guy in your graduating class", if you live in a small town and your graduating class has 216 people in it. Now, he may be ultra-intelligent or he may just be very bright; but when you just have a distribution from 3 to 18 to work with that people can be born with, then the top number has to include the entire top half percent of the human race, which happens to be everything from run-of-the-mill gifted to the Einstein-level brilliant that only comes along once in a century.

It's important to remember here that the designers selected 3d6 for stats simply because it is a convenient means of randomly determining a number on a bell-shaped curve. It wasn't chosen for its ability to map the distribution of intelligence in a population. You can't use it for that purpose in this situation.

SensFan
2010-11-05, 04:10 PM
What the hell? That's not how ability checks work. Anyone with 18 Str is capable of bending iron bars (on a natural 20). Anyone with 22 Str is capable of bursting chain bonds. Anyone with 26 Str is capable of breaking down iron doors (and incidentally, is capable of casually breaking the world record for squats, if the world record I'm looking at is correct)
My mistake. I misread the chart.

Slipperychicken
2010-11-05, 05:55 PM
Someone I know teaches special education, and I've heard a few horror stories from the field. Long story short, the "stupidest" kid I've ever heard about (48 IQ, is described as "borderline animal") acts like this:

1. No ability to recall information (can not even repeat something you just told him without significant errors)

2. Attention span so short that he's unable to sit quietly in class for periods exceeding two minutes, and will begin walking around the room at the first sign of boredom, disregarding the entire class glaring at him.

3. Is almost incapable of forming coherent ideas or sentences. Planning? the farthest he can see into the future is ten minutes when he tries really hard. just forget about it.

4. Will literally undertake any action, regardless of how antisocial or insane, if promised five dollars (he has licked floors and people!:smalleek:). You don't even have to give him the money, just promise it. Okay, most adventurers would do this anyway with int 22 wis 18, but still.

Intelligence 3 means: no skills, and your sense motive is your wisdom mod (max +4 if you rolled 18). When Lincoln said "you can fool some of the people all of the time", he meant you. Search is -4, so good luck taking 20 to find your keys. Hell, forget the keys, you can't even find the car.

You're indisputably an idiot, and people (in- and out of character) will facepalm hourly over your total inability to put 2 and 2 together. Even if you pump both wis and cha to 18, people will like you and you can figure things out eventually, but you're still stupid. The fact that you lived to age five is a miracle.

Lev
2010-11-05, 06:23 PM
By definition, the same number of people have X Int as have X Str.
Anyone with 14 Str is capable of bending iron bars.
Anyone with 16 Str is capable of bursting chain bonds.
Anyone with 18 Str is capable of breaking down iron doors.
(Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm))

I'm just asking; did you have someone in your graduating class that could break down iron doors? I'm guessing that's a no.
Your style of thought assumes the dice means how well you did it. Sometimes the die just means you got lucky.

Coidzor
2010-11-05, 06:56 PM
I'm more amused by how based on those rules, the Kool-aid man is very, very strong. Like 72 Strength, strong.

mangosta71
2010-11-06, 12:09 AM
I'm more amused by how based on those rules, the Kool-aid man is very, very strong. Like 72 Strength, strong.

Nah, he's just a martial adept. Bursting through solid walls is easy with those Stone Dragon maneuvers that allow you to ignore damage reduction/hardness.

Callista
2010-11-06, 01:00 AM
It's important to remember here that the designers selected 3d6 for stats simply because it is a convenient means of randomly determining a number on a bell-shaped curve. It wasn't chosen for its ability to map the distribution of intelligence in a population. You can't use it for that purpose in this situation.
My assumptions are:
1. In the D&D system, NPCs are born with stats that are rolled on 3d6, and these stats are rolled randomly.
2. "Average intelligence", "smart", and "dumb", mean approximately the same thing in the D&D system as they do in the real world.
3. There are about the same proportions of smart, dumb, and average people in both distributions.

If you base it on those assumptions, then you can match the distributions to each other and, by comparing the odds of rolling a number versus the odds of getting a certain IQ test score, you can convert them back and forth.

grimbold
2010-11-06, 02:32 AM
Someone I know teaches special education, and I've heard a few horror stories from the field. Long story short, the "stupidest" kid I've ever heard about (48 IQ, is described as "borderline animal") acts like this:

1. No ability to recall information (can not even repeat something you just told him without significant errors)

2. Attention span so short that he's unable to sit quietly in class for periods exceeding two minutes, and will begin walking around the room at the first sign of boredom, disregarding the entire class glaring at him.

3. Is almost incapable of forming coherent ideas or sentences. Planning? the farthest he can see into the future is ten minutes when he tries really hard. just forget about it.

4. Will literally undertake any action, regardless of how antisocial or insane, if promised five dollars (he has licked floors and people!:smalleek:). You don't even have to give him the money, just promise it. Okay, most adventurers would do this anyway with int 22 wis 18, but still.

Intelligence 3 means: no skills, and your sense motive is your wisdom mod (max +4 if you rolled 18). When Lincoln said "you can fool some of the people all of the time", he meant you. Search is -4, so good luck taking 20 to find your keys. Hell, forget the keys, you can't even find the car.

You're indisputably an idiot, and people (in- and out of character) will facepalm hourly over your total inability to put 2 and 2 together. Even if you pump both wis and cha to 18, people will like you and you can figure things out eventually, but you're still stupid. The fact that you lived to age five is a miracle.

this post pretty much hits the nail on the head. Nice job with a real world example.
another idea is that if you trust one party member completely you could behave like Lenny in Of Mice and Men (don't know if you've read it but its pretty good), or in other words gentle most of the time but when somebody ticks off the person you trust or attacks you, buh-bye

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-06, 03:21 AM
this post pretty much hits the nail on the head. Nice job with a real world example.
another idea is that if you trust one party member completely you could behave like Lenny in Of Mice and Men (don't know if you've read it but its pretty good), or in other words gentle most of the time but when somebody ticks off the person you trust or attacks you, buh-bye

actually the one time Lenny attacks someone on purpose (Curly's Wife and the puppy don't count) was after being shouted at to fight back by George when Curly was whaling on him. even while being attacked he didn't fight back until told too repeatedly

Eloel
2010-11-06, 03:36 AM
Your style of thought assumes the dice means how well you did it. Sometimes the die just means you got lucky.

You can take 20 in bursting an iron door (or anything else with no penalty for failing). So, eventually that 18 Str guy WILL bend the iron bar. 16 Str guy? No way.



The fact that you lived to age five is a miracle.
Agreed with all but this. Animals tend to live longer than 5 years with below 3 int.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-06, 04:01 AM
Agreed with all but this. Animals tend to live longer than 5 years with below 3 int.

animals rarely have to compete with 10INT sentient humanoids and they rarely live to 20 anyway

grimbold
2010-11-06, 05:26 AM
right about Mice and Men your right D&Dfan, anyway rping your character like lenny would work i think

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-06, 05:28 AM
right about Mice and Men your right D&Dfan, anyway rping your character like lenny would work i think

Finally English class actually affected my life in some way

grimbold
2010-11-06, 08:27 AM
Finally English class actually affected my life in some way

WIN!
never really affected my life till just then either

SensFan
2010-11-06, 09:15 AM
My assumptions are:
1. In the D&D system, NPCs are born with stats that are rolled on 3d6, and these stats are rolled randomly.
2. "Average intelligence", "smart", and "dumb", mean approximately the same thing in the D&D system as they do in the real world.
3. There are about the same proportions of smart, dumb, and average people in both distributions.

If you base it on those assumptions, then you can match the distributions to each other and, by comparing the odds of rolling a number versus the odds of getting a certain IQ test score, you can convert them back and forth.
1 is heavily flawed, in my opinion. The son of Joe Farmer and Susan Farmwife isn't going to be literally as smart as is humanly possible, nor as strong as is humanly possible, etc...

The Glyphstone
2010-11-06, 10:21 AM
1 is heavily flawed, in my opinion. The son of Joe Farmer and Susan Farmwife isn't going to be literally as smart as is humanly possible, nor as strong as is humanly possible, etc...

If this was a normal world, you'd have a solid point. But this is D&D, where Dragons can breed with literally everything to make a half-dragon (including other dragons, resulting in 150% dragon), and there are half-templates for almost anything under the sun. Any logical rules of genetics have long since gone to cry in the corner.:smallbiggrin:

TLDR: In a world where a half-dragon orc and a half-water elemental human can shack up and have a half-dragon half-elemental half-orc kid, the son of Joe and Susan Farmfolk can very potentially be a genetic lottery winning superman.

SensFan
2010-11-06, 10:48 AM
If this was a normal world, you'd have a solid point. But this is D&D, where Dragons can breed with literally everything to make a half-dragon (including other dragons, resulting in 150% dragon), and there are half-templates for almost anything under the sun. Any logical rules of genetics have long since gone to cry in the corner.:smallbiggrin:

TLDR: In a world where a half-dragon orc and a half-water elemental human can shack up and have a half-dragon half-elemental half-orc kid, the son of Joe and Susan Farmfolk can very potentially be a genetic lottery winning superman.
We'll agree to disagree. To me, if someone is as [strong/smart/etc] as it is possible for someone of their race to be, they're not a random NPC. They're going to be someone important, notably a PC or NPC with numerous PC class levels. The way I use the mechanics to represent that is by rolling stats as normal for PCs and important NPCs, and all the average NPCs get stats between, say, 6-14, with maybe the odd average Joe getting a 4-5, or a 15-16.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-06, 11:32 AM
We'll agree to disagree. To me, if someone is as [strong/smart/etc] as it is possible for someone of their race to be, they're not a random NPC. They're going to be someone important, notably a PC or NPC with numerous PC class levels. The way I use the mechanics to represent that is by rolling stats as normal for PCs and important NPCs, and all the average NPCs get stats between, say, 6-14, with maybe the odd average Joe getting a 4-5, or a 15-16.

So, you decide who's important and who's unimportant in the now (or relative to the campaign), then generate their stats based on that paradigm. Fair enough, but I'd be going at it the opposite way, or at least from both ends at once. General Mayhem, the king's army commander-in-chief, would probably qualify as an important NPC, and so deserve better-than-average stats. He had to come from somewhere, though, and who says his parents weren't a pair of average farmers? A question of NPC predestination or a chicken-and-egg problem, I guess - under your system, Mayhem is a great warrior now, so he had to gotten that 18 strength; I look at it that anyone could have gotten the 18 strength, but because Mayhem did, he's the one that won out in the end.

grimbold
2010-11-06, 01:04 PM
So, you decide who's important and who's unimportant in the now (or relative to the campaign), then generate their stats based on that paradigm. Fair enough, but I'd be going at it the opposite way, or at least from both ends at once. General Mayhem, the king's army commander-in-chief, would probably qualify as an important NPC, and so deserve better-than-average stats. He had to come from somewhere, though, and who says his parents weren't a pair of average farmers? A question of NPC predestination or a chicken-and-egg problem, I guess - under your system, Mayhem is a great warrior now, so he had to gotten that 18 strength; I look at it that anyone could have gotten the 18 strength, but because Mayhem did, he's the one that won out in the end.

sometimes there are just genetic surprises
Da Vinci's parents weren't really geniuses

Coidzor
2010-11-06, 01:24 PM
We'll agree to disagree. To me, if someone is as [strong/smart/etc] as it is possible for someone of their race to be, they're not a random NPC. They're going to be someone important, notably a PC or NPC with numerous PC class levels.

And guess what? That's who your PCs meet and/or are! :smallbiggrin:

Otherwise they don't amount to much and are the bootlickers and tavern wenches.

Well, or aristocrats who had better hope they are pretty enough that the new guy on the block who can take out dragons likes the look of 'em.


sometimes there are just genetic surprises
Da Vinci's parents weren't really geniuses

There are no surprises. Only insufficient data to make projections. :smallcool:

SCIENCE!

SensFan
2010-11-06, 01:43 PM
And guess what? That's who your PCs meet and/or are! :smallbiggrin:

Otherwise they don't amount to much and are the bootlickers and tavern wenches.

Well, or aristocrats who had better hope they are pretty enough that the new guy on the block who can take out dragons likes the look of 'em.
Right. Which is why those important people get rolled stats. If the PCs meet 50,000,000,000 average people in small towns throughout the land, and none of the people are of any importance, there won't be a single 17 or 18 stat among the lot of them.

If the distribution is that stats are 'rolled' for everyone, then every insignificant hamlet of 36 people will statistically contain someone who is as intelligent, strong, dextrous, etc... as any human in the world. And to me, that doesn't make the PCs, NPC Allies, and NPC Villains feel special.

Coidzor
2010-11-06, 01:46 PM
Right. Which is why those important people get rolled stats. If the PCs meet 50,000,000,000 average people in small towns throughout the land, and none of the people are of any importance, there won't be a single 17 or 18 stat among the lot of them.

If the distribution is that stats are 'rolled' for everyone, then every insignificant hamlet of 36 people will statistically contain someone who is as intelligent, strong, dextrous, etc... as any human in the world. And to me, that doesn't make the PCs, NPC Allies, and NPC Villains feel special.

I think the bigger issue contributing to this situation is more that your hand would hurt from the rolling. :smallwink:

Ormur
2010-11-06, 02:59 PM
I tend to assume that the stat distribution of the population on the whole is the same as if everyone had rolled 3d6. I'm not modelling how the child of a particular NPC determines his stats, it's just like that on average.

It's not 1 in 216 average Joe's that has an 18 in one particular stat, it's 1 in 216 of the whole population. Those that get good stats aren't the average Joe's, they're the elite NPC's you meet because they were born into a good family, got picked up as apprentices for a PC class, became adventurers, businessmen, evil overlords etc. The ones that for some reason have good stats tend to be more important. In fact I treat the favourable rolling method or high point buy of PCs as a result of that. People that roll poorly aren't adventurers so the PCs aren't allowed to roll too poorly.

On the other hand even if a particular NPC has 18 in one stat maybe all his other stats are terrible. Maybe there's just a lot of wasted potential because of a feudal system or a caste system.

When the PCs come into some random village the mostly interact with the most prominent inhabitants that have levels in a PC class. Those are the guys that rolled well but since the head of the guard and the mayor don't have any significance to the overall plot I just slap the elite array on them. If I for some reason need to stat out average farmer #7 I give him the standard array for the same reason. The village most probably has a local prodigy/wise elder/idiot savant that got an 18 in some mental stat but unless the village is an important setting in the campaign I can't be bothered to describe all that.

On the other hand I don't give people that are actually important to the plot the elite array or the standard array because I have to model them more accurately, it has nothing to do with how most people actually are. It's not all that likely you'll get the exact standard array by rolling 3d6 either but it's sufficient for my purposes.

rokar4life
2010-11-06, 07:16 PM
I thought animals actually were int 3?

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-06, 07:19 PM
I thought animals actually were int 3?

i think thats the point. a guy with 3 INT isn't actually sentient. he has to be TN and is very animalistic

Lhurgyof
2010-11-06, 07:20 PM
I thought animals actually were int 3?

Nah, int 1 or 2. If it was 3, they could talk.

Callista
2010-11-06, 07:41 PM
There's a large gap between animal and human intelligence any way you look at it; an animal thinks in a different way from a severely cognitively disabled human, even if they can solve problems at a similar level. Their brains just aren't wired the same way.

In D&D, that probably extends to interesting things like the minds of different races being as different qualitatively--even if the INT scores are identical--as an animal's mind and a disabled human's mind. For example: Does a kobold think differently from a goblin? How about a human and an elf? A yuan-ti and a mindflayer? Probably yes, even if their INT scores are the same. There's more to intelligence and cognition than an INT score, just as there's more to intelligence than an IQ score.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-06, 08:03 PM
There's a large gap between animal and human intelligence any way you look at it; an animal thinks in a different way from a severely cognitively disabled human, even if they can solve problems at a similar level. Their brains just aren't wired the same way.

In D&D, that probably extends to interesting things like the minds of different races being as different qualitatively--even if the INT scores are identical--as an animal's mind and a disabled human's mind. For example: Does a kobold think differently from a goblin? How about a human and an elf? A yuan-ti and a mindflayer? Probably yes, even if their INT scores are the same. There's more to intelligence and cognition than an INT score, just as there's more to intelligence than an IQ score.

I don't know, animals like Dolphins and Crows are surprisingly intelligent.

Callista
2010-11-06, 10:40 PM
Well, let me re-phrase that: Animals' intelligence is different. If you got into a car accident and gave yourself a serious head injury and ended up with enough intelligence to solve the same kinds of problems a dolphin can solve, you still wouldn't think the same way a dolphin thinks, right? It's not impossible for a human to have about the same general amount of problem-solving and abstract thinking ability that an animal has, especially one like a dolphin or a chimp; but that human still won't be anything like the dolphin or the chimp because he's human and he's built differently, so he thinks differently. The dolphin, for example, will think in 3-D and get information from sonar; the human will be instinctively drawn to faces and language; the chimp will be very aware of movement and color. It's just different. You can't say an INT 3 human (or, for that matter, an INT 1 human, given poisons or spells to get him there) is like an animal, because he isn't.

Did that make any sense?

I actually felt pretty horrified when Slipperychicken talked about how her friend in special ed is describing one of the students as "borderline animal"... I don't want somebody like that teaching MY kid! Unless, I guess, they really love animals so that it means something that doesn't imply the kid is subhuman.

SensFan
2010-11-06, 10:48 PM
I actually felt pretty horrified when Slipperychicken talked about how her friend in special ed is describing one of the students as "borderline animal"... I don't want somebody like that teaching MY kid! Unless, I guess, they really love animals so that it means something that doesn't imply the kid is subhuman.
I've witnessed a girl in a public school grade 8 class who thinks she's a dog, to the point she barks, drools, etc...

Callista
2010-11-06, 11:02 PM
That doesn't mean that she's sub-human, though; it only means she either thinks she is, or likes to pretend she is, a dog. (I'm guessing the second one... I've talked to someone whose autistic child, age nine, likes to pretend he's a dog; our guess is that he finds it easier to interact dog-fashion than human-fashion because dog socialization is less complex.) But the idea that someone is "an animal" brings with it the concept of not being human (or, I guess, in the D&D world, not having a soul). So that's the idea I got from it, and which is why I guess I reacted badly--I don't like the idea of anybody being thought of as less than human.

SensFan
2010-11-06, 11:04 PM
That doesn't mean that she's sub-human, though; it only means she either thinks she is, or likes to pretend she is, a dog. (I'm guessing the second one... I've talked to someone whose autistic child, age nine, likes to pretend he's a dog; our guess is that he finds it easier to interact dog-fashion than human-fashion because dog socialization is less complex.) But the idea that someone is "an animal" brings with it the concept of not being human (or, I guess, in the D&D world, not having a soul). So that's the idea I got from it, and which is why I guess I reacted badly--I don't like the idea of anybody being thought of as less than human.
I'm inclined to think it's the former, given that it lasted the entire school year, from what I'm told. Though regardless, I think you're looking too harshly at the word animal. I'm an animal, you're an animal. We're all animals.

Coidzor
2010-11-06, 11:12 PM
I've witnessed a girl in a public school grade 8 class who thinks she's a dog, to the point she barks, drools, etc...

Odd, they generally institutionalize people who aren't doing that as an annoying act.

Callista
2010-11-06, 11:12 PM
Connotations, not dictionary definitions. For example, if someone were to refer to me as a "primate", I would probably not be offended because it's a scientific term referring to the family of creatures which includes humans. But "animal"... well, that carries a lot more with it, and it's not usually just the scientific classification. In fact, "animal" is often used to refer to someone who has no conscience, who is actively sociopathic. Not exactly the way I'd want to describe a disabled kid. Well, unless he really were a sociopath, but in that case I'd be insulting animals!

Coidzor--We've been moving away from institutionalizing people, especially children, for a good long time now. It's generally quite counterproductive to put someone into long-term care because the lack of family ties and community involvement can make whatever he's got so much worse that there's very little hope of recovery left. Instead, we tend to hospitalize people only when they are in direct danger, or putting others in direct danger, and treat them as outpatients instead. Staying in the "real world" makes it a lot easier for most people to recover from mental illness and a lot easier for people with cognitive disabilities or developmental disorders to integrate into society.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-06, 11:14 PM
dog socialization is less complex.

It's way more complex than us as it uses sound, movement and smell in increasingly complex patterns depending on what each dog wants. just because they don't tend to lie to each other (that we know of) doesn't mean it is less complex. If you see a dog meeting another it goes through several communication processes to determine relation, friend/enemy, higher/lower rank etc. and that is only between the same gender. Male/Female meeting is even MORE complex.

SensFan
2010-11-06, 11:15 PM
Connotations, not dictionary definitions. For example, if someone were to refer to me as a "primate", I would probably not be offended because it's a scientific term referring to the family of creatures which includes humans. But "animal"... well, that carries a lot more with it, and it's not usually just the scientific classification. In fact, "animal" is often used to refer to someone who has no conscience, who is actively sociopathic. Not exactly the way I'd want to describe a disabled kid. Well, unless he really were a sociopath, but in that case I'd be insulting animals!
That's a fair point. Would you prefer the term 'primal' for people with 3 Int, rather than 'animalistic'?

Callista
2010-11-06, 11:18 PM
Hmm... I think I'd use "primal" more for a wild child type, or someone from a group of people who didn't use technology. Actually, that'd be a cool character... low INT, high WIS, have him be a druid or some such, and have him be so integrated with nature that it's difficult for him to understand the way civilized people think. It'd be an RP challenge, though, since you'd have to work in a group and have problems communicating.


It's way more complex than us as it uses sound, movement and smell in increasingly complex patterns depending on what each dog wants. just because they don't tend to lie to each other (that we know of) doesn't mean it is less complex. If you see a dog meeting another it goes through several communication processes to determine relation, friend/enemy, higher/lower rank etc. and that is only between the same gender. Male/Female meeting is even MORE complex.Well, yeah, it was probably the kid's idea of how dogs interacted rather than an animal behaviorist's. :)

Coidzor
2010-11-06, 11:34 PM
Callista: That'd be feral. As in feral children.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-07, 12:35 AM
Well, yeah, it was probably the kid's idea of how dogs interacted rather than an animal behaviorist's. :)

i was just telling you that dogs communicate more complexly than humans as you said they communicated less complexly. and im not an animal behaviorist (actually I'm a kid :smalltongue:)

grimbold
2010-11-07, 03:57 AM
imo a half-orc barbarians only notiicable behavior would be SMASH!

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-07, 06:05 AM
We'll agree to disagree. To me, if someone is as [strong/smart/etc] as it is possible for someone of their race to be, they're not a random NPC. They're going to be someone important, notably a PC or NPC with numerous PC class levels. The way I use the mechanics to represent that is by rolling stats as normal for PCs and important NPCs, and all the average NPCs get stats between, say, 6-14, with maybe the odd average Joe getting a 4-5, or a 15-16.

To me, this is ass-backwards way of looking at things. Not only because I don't hold a max starting score as "strongest/smartest/whatever possible".

Arnold Schwarzenegger started out as an Austrian immigrant with five dollars for pocket change. If that doesn't qualify for "random joe", I don't know what does. Yet look at where the guy is now, and what he has done!

Point is, expectional people can come from unexpectional backgrounds. Also, expectional attributes dont make an expectional character! A level 1 barbarian with 18 strength has nothing on level 5 Barbarian with 19 strenght. Level 1 expert with 10 int with Educated feat will detect smarter than level 1 commoner with 18 int with Skill Focus: Profession (Farming) in nearly every conceivable test.

Slipperychicken
2010-11-07, 09:34 AM
I actually felt pretty horrified when Slipperychicken talked about how her friend in special ed is describing one of the students as "borderline animal"... I don't want somebody like that teaching MY kid!

@Callista: I wish I could agree with you, but this person really just doesn't underestimate her kids' mental faculties and typically puts things in the most diplomatic way possible (i.e. the 16-year-old stuck in 5th grade is "having trouble"). The fact that she so harshly scorns the use of words like 'retarded' and 'stupid' is what made her description of this child so powerful. It was the fact that this was in such stark contrast to the way she always makes a politically-correct list of strengths and weaknesses that made me understand the extent to which this child was really suffering.

On Topic: In terms of the practical application of 3 int, skills, feats, and class features certainly have a more noticeable impact on gameplay, but 3 int has no ranks and, counting the untrained penalty, -5 to all int-based checks. This would be mechanically represented by the fact that your character literally could only make common knowlege checks (DC 10) 25% of the time, so a good RP option would be to act confused and/or hostile to anything he doesn't immediately understand. Also, he'll almost certainly fail (for lack of ranks) any of the other checks necessary for adventuring (see: balance, tumble, use rope, diplomacy) so the low-voiced Forrest Gump/Lenny route would also be pretty safe considering he'd make the party barbarian look competent.

SensFan
2010-11-07, 10:05 AM
To me, this is ass-backwards way of looking at things. Not only because I don't hold a max starting score as "strongest/smartest/whatever possible".
Except that's what it means. In DnD the human maximum (without magic) for Strength is 18. Thus an 18 Str Average Joe is the strongest human alive, in an anti-magic field.

Callista
2010-11-07, 10:53 AM
Only for older editions... 18 is the maximum you can be born with, but it's not the maximum achievable through training.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-07, 11:00 AM
Except that's what it means. In DnD the human maximum (without magic) for Strength is 18. Thus an 18 Str Average Joe is the strongest human alive, in an anti-magic field.

Not in D&D 3.5. A level 4 human can non-magically have 19 str - a level 4 human paragon can non-magically have what, 21 str? A level 1 human barbarian can temporarily have 22 str non-magically... and so on.

There are dozens of ways for a human to have non-magical attributes over 18 in D&D 3.5. In fact, with mental scores, all you have to do is live long enough. 18 does not represent maximum of human ability, in any way.

Susano-wo
2010-11-07, 11:35 AM
Sens. that's not really true in 3rd ed. Once you allow for training at higher levels, non magical people can have up to 23 STR. sure, that's by 20th level, and are the exceptions, not the rule.
(damn, dinja'd ^_^)

ANd I agree 3with what slipperchicken seems to be saying: the -5 to all INT based checks with make sure that the 3 INT character is plenty stupid, without making them nonfunctional

...

A thought just occured to me that probably should have occured much earlier. YOu mentioned this as a non-theoretical character. Meaning you actualyl have the character stated ouyt...did you actually rol la 3, or is this PB?

THis may seem inconsistent, but my stance actually changes if its PB. Essentially it becomes less a matter of hamstringing and more a matter of Min-Maxing...

Callista
2010-11-07, 11:37 AM
He didn't roll the 3, but he's playing a half-orc barbarian, and the penalty took it down to 3. I'm guessing the other stats are quite good, or he'd just be going for a re-roll.

So, yeah, barbarian (very in touch with nature) with bad INT and presumably good to great values for other stats--including CHA and WIS, meaning he understands people and is a sensible person who understands and is aware of the world around him.

Oh! How about this--you play him as having had a traumatic brain injury in the past. Easy enough to get when you're a barbarian warrior, and survivable with his presumably good CON. He's lost a lot of skills, and is now somewhat more dependent on others; but he's still a barbarian warrior and that means he hates being babied--so he leaves home and sets out to prove himself despite the injury. I think that'd be a cool concept. Plus, he's already half-orc, and that means he's either grown up with people who see him as half-enemy, or else he's grown up in a half-orc society that's looked at with suspicion by almost anyone (but they would've been a great deal more supportive; perhaps in that case he'd be leaving with their blessing).

Regarding half-orcs: Just like cats have no problem surviving with an INT of 2, orcs have no real problems surviving with an average INT of less than 10. They're adapted to their environments. So, a half-orc would have an advantage over a human, because he's not supposed to be as smart as a human, and therefore compensates with other skills, the way the cat compensates with dexterity and wisdom to fit into its environment.

Speaking of Wisdom scores: A low-INT, high-WIS character will be aware that he is not as intelligent as others, and will often be willing to rely on smarter people for advice, just as they rely on him to see things they don't notice. If the party is willing to be interdependent like that, the low INT doesn't have to be something that gets him autokilled the second you see the equivalent of a big red button.

mangosta71
2010-11-07, 12:26 PM
Animals' intelligence is different. If you got into a car accident and gave yourself a serious head injury and ended up with enough intelligence to solve the same kinds of problems a dolphin can solve, you still wouldn't think the same way a dolphin thinks, right? It's not impossible for a human to have about the same general amount of problem-solving and abstract thinking ability that an animal has, especially one like a dolphin or a chimp; but that human still won't be anything like the dolphin or the chimp because he's human and he's built differently, so he thinks differently. The dolphin, for example, will think in 3-D and get information from sonar; the human will be instinctively drawn to faces and language; the chimp will be very aware of movement and color. It's just different. You can't say an INT 3 human (or, for that matter, an INT 1 human, given poisons or spells to get him there) is like an animal, because he isn't.
Given that we don't actually know how the brain works, we can't say conclusively that animals think differently. All you're describing here is different responses to sensory stimuli. (And, by the way, the human eye is also drawn to movement and differences in color.)

Anyway, I'm not certain that a character with 3 int would be capable of functioning, or even surviving, on his own in a medieval setting such as D&D. The score is indicative of a serious learning disability.

Callista
2010-11-07, 12:31 PM
From what we know about how the brain works, from fMRIs and other brain scans, from dissection, and from neuropsych testing, animal and human brains work differently.

INT 3 people would survive in a medieval society the same way they survive here: Other people help them.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-07, 01:32 PM
One could argue that animals are more functional than severely mentally disabled humans. However, this a matter of D&D being highly inaccurate what comes to assigning Int to animals - several species would easily warrant more than 1 or 2 intelligence, even if they're not listed as such.

Susano-wo
2010-11-07, 02:40 PM
yeah, if its rolled, then definitely, as long as the character is quite stupid, it should be fine.

And yes, humans and animals seems to think differently. And yes, even by human intellectual benchmarks, many animals are smarter than INT 2, assuming a more or less linear scale.

Lev
2010-11-07, 02:45 PM
Hmm... I think I'd use "primal" more for a wild child type, or someone from a group of people who didn't use technology. Actually, that'd be a cool character... low INT, high WIS, have him be a druid or some such, and have him be so integrated with nature that it's difficult for him to understand the way civilized people think. It'd be an RP challenge, though, since you'd have to work in a group and have problems communicating.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9694387&postcount=19

I would agree that primal by definition is more in terms of what I was going for.

grimbold
2010-11-09, 11:38 AM
yeah, if its rolled, then definitely, as long as the character is quite stupid, it should be fine.

And yes, humans and animals seems to think differently. And yes, even by human intellectual benchmarks, many animals are smarter than INT 2, assuming a more or less linear scale.

thats a good point
maybe you could say that intelligence scales are different for different types of creatures
so 3 INT for a humanoid is still higher than 3 INT for a cow or something?
that would be an interesting way to view D&D

Callista
2010-11-09, 12:34 PM
Yes, there's a big gap between human and animal intelligence--both in the type of intelligence and in raw power.

For example, a monkey can easily calculate all the angles and forces required to jump from one tree branch to another; a human can't, not without some training (i.e., skill points or feats). A bird can navigate from one half of the globe to another; once again, the human needs training to do that. Animals can instinctively do some things that humans with even average INT, let alone low INT, cannot do without training. And yet, with training, a human has a great deal more potential, because learning is pretty much our schtick as a species.

So... animals can do more than we can, untrained; but humans have a great deal more potential for learning. That seems to be the difference (along with the obvious sensory processing and social differences, of course). That's why we educate our own cognitively disabled students: They have a capacity for learning--less than the average student, sure, but they can learn, whether it means learning to eat a meal or learning to do data-entry. For a long time, people underestimated them pretty badly simply because they were looking at them as they were having existed without education their whole lives--of course they were worse off; they weren't allowed to live up to their potential. It took us a while to figure out that learning is what conscious human beings do, and that we'll be a lot better off, disabled or not, when we make learning available to everybody.

(I should admit it now: My mom is an occupational therapist who works with disabled kids and nursing home residents. So I have a bit of background on this, thus the lecture. That and being autistic myself, which doesn't relate to special ed because I was mainstreamed or home-schooled, but still peripherally related because it does make me somewhat different from others, even in my late twenties. Without education, I'd probably be unable to live on my own!)

Susano-wo
2010-11-09, 03:10 PM
I hate to disagreew with someone who is agreeeing with me, but typically, DnD would model the monkey's ability to jump from tree to tree with skills[jump and balance, feats [bracheation(sp?)], or possibly class features. So in Dnd terms the monkey is not untrained.


Though in RL I agree, that instinct and the way an animals brain processes things seems to lead to untrained abilities that boggle the mind, but humans do have a large capacity for learning, which is basically the onyl reason we survived. Go, go, the science! :smallbiggrin:

mangosta71
2010-11-09, 06:12 PM
From what we know about how the brain works, from fMRIs and other brain scans, from dissection, and from neuropsych testing, animal and human brains work differently.
Those things tell us that their brains have different physiologies. We can watch information getting passed around the brain on those scans, but all that tells us is that the parts of their brains are arranged differently. For example, a human's ocular cortex may occupy the same spot in the human brain that the cerebral cortex occupies in the brain of a rodent. In many cases, different parts are developed more or less than they are in a typical human brain as well. Dissection tells us nothing but anatomy.

As for neuropsych testing, there's no way for us to actually see how animals think. We know that they learn through trial and error (just like humans). We assume that they are able to communicate to share knowledge (just like humans). However, since we don't know how memories or knowledge are stored or accessed, we cannot say conclusively that human and animal brains work differently (aside from those differences that are imposed by physiology).

Yes, there's a big gap between human and animal intelligence--both in the type of intelligence and in raw power.
The latest tests break intelligence down into a number of categories. Animals are varied enough that there are examples of non-humans that surpass human intelligence in almost every category.

The raw power of intelligence correlates directly with the size of the brain. Humans (barring interference) have larger, more developed brains than other animals.

All that said, the biggest fallacy people are making in this thread is following the D&D convention that all animals have an Int score of 1-2. A little real world observation shows that this is not the case.

nedz
2010-11-09, 08:09 PM
Speaking of the mechanics, you are aware that Touch of Idiocy will drop you in one hit, right? Make sure you prepare for that. If you're fighting a spellcaster worth his salt, he'll have it prepared if he knows anything at all about your team.

I don't understand how this can work, you have an Int of 3 so how could you even consider the option ?

Susano-wo
2010-11-09, 08:13 PM
I don't understand how this can work, you have an Int of 3 so how could you even consider the option ?

Because you are sentient being capable of learning weapon proficiencies, speaking languages, using tools, and quite possibly understanding that you are not smart. Something to boost your smarts is a really sensible thing to try to obtain. Also your friends could easily have gotten you this nice and shiney gift...:smallamused:

grimbold
2010-11-10, 01:14 PM
anyone else noticed the op hasnt posted in a while and we kinda went out on a tangent? XD

anyway this is where you wonder how exactly intelligence works versus skill points

Callista
2010-11-10, 01:45 PM
I don't understand how this can work, you have an Int of 3 so how could you even consider the option ?You as a player. If you're playing a character with a very low stat, you need to make sure that the first smart magic- or poison-user isn't going to target your character and take him out in one hit. Whether that means boosting saves, boosting Touch AC, or making sure someone in the party has a way to repair the damage before you get CdG'd, it's something you've got to plan for. Your character, now, might only know, "I'm not so smart, so I should trust smarter people when they talk about smart stuff," but you as the player would know, for example, that the party cleric can get rid of poisons or that increasing your Touch AC would stop you from being hit with Touch of Idiocy, or that the Restoration series of spells help get rid of effects that target your stats.


anyone else noticed the op hasnt posted in a while and we kinda went out on a tangent? XD

anyway this is where you wonder how exactly intelligence works versus skill pointsYep. It turned into an interesting discussion, though, so it doesn't really matter where the OP is.

Talya
2010-11-10, 06:36 PM
Compare: Cetaceans and Elephants are remarkably intellient, and in fact, likely overlap with people in the real world. (In reality, they're proven to be self-aware, so should probably have 3+ intelligence in D&D, but I digress.) You could play your character with a more animalistic style of cognizance. Sure, at Int3, you can technically learn to speak and read, but you could avoid seeming like a complete idiot by acting with more cunning than a very bright predatory animal.

nedz
2010-11-10, 07:08 PM
You as a player. If you're playing a character with a very low stat, you need to make sure that the first smart magic- or poison-user isn't going to target your character and take him out in one hit. Whether that means boosting saves, boosting Touch AC, or making sure someone in the party has a way to repair the damage before you get CdG'd, it's something you've got to plan for. Your character, now, might only know, "I'm not so smart, so I should trust smarter people when they talk about smart stuff," but you as the player would know, for example, that the party cleric can get rid of poisons or that increasing your Touch AC would stop you from being hit with Touch of Idiocy, or that the Restoration series of spells help get rid of effects that target your stats.

Yes of course, but how is that roleplaying a character with an Int of 3 ?

Susano-wo
2010-11-10, 08:29 PM
Yes of course, but how is that roleplaying a character with an Int of 3 ?

using player knowledge is only out of character when it violates character. YO ucan have the character still act dumb, and choose good options from within that...which includes asking smarter people for advice.

randomhero00
2010-11-10, 08:32 PM
DnD does not have a sliding scale when it comes to stats. What this means is that there is a bigger difference between a 2 int and a 3int than between a 12int and a 18 int. 2 int can't read or write (or even speak I don't think) whereas a 3 can do that just fine. So the thing is you really wouldn't drastically play a 3 int all that much different from a 6 or an 8.

SensFan
2010-11-10, 09:47 PM
DnD does not have a sliding scale when it comes to stats. What this means is that there is a bigger difference between a 2 int and a 3int than between a 12int and a 18 int. 2 int can't read or write (or even speak I don't think) whereas a 3 can do that just fine. So the thing is you really wouldn't drastically play a 3 int all that much different from a 6 or an 8.
...except it doesn't work that way. Without magics, 3 is the absolute bottom of human intelligence. That's drastically different from the average pre-teen (Int 6-8).

randomhero00
2010-11-10, 09:58 PM
...except it doesn't work that way. Without magics, 3 is the absolute bottom of human intelligence. That's drastically different from the average pre-teen (Int 6-8).

It does. Do the actual statistical math with the skills and you'll see. There's not much of a difference. There's nothing stopping a 3 int character from doing something a 9 int character can do.

grimbold
2010-11-11, 06:04 AM
but the 9 int character is 25% more likely to do it on the first try

mangosta71
2010-11-11, 11:59 AM
Also, the 9 int character might have a point or two to spend on skills.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 02:11 PM
Oh, wow, I never noticed that PC classes don't have the minimum 1 for skillpoints that animals do. :smalleek:

He's really going to be useless outside of combat.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-11, 02:58 PM
...except it doesn't work that way. Without magics, 3 is the absolute bottom of human intelligence. That's drastically different from the average pre-teen (Int 6-8).

Magic or many sorts of mundane damage, flaws etc.

So what you're saying is that 3 is absolute bottom for an undamaged human invidual. That matters... exactly how?

SensFan
2010-11-11, 05:34 PM
Magic or many sorts of mundane damage, flaws etc.

So what you're saying is that 3 is absolute bottom for an undamaged human invidual. That matters... exactly how?
That I seriously doubt that in any serious campaign setting, that the dumbest farmer alive (if we assume that the average farmer lives a 'normal' life, never encountering magic or ability damage) is just as smart as the average Orc, Centaur, or pre-teen human. Thus, I don't understand the claim that 'Int 3 isn't all that different from Int 8, and so can be roleplayed similarily.'

We're not talking about the dumb neighbour. We're talking about the guy who is incapable of being trained to do anything.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 05:41 PM
That I seriously doubt that in any serious campaign setting, that the dumbest farmer alive (if we assume that the average farmer lives a 'normal' life, never encountering magic or ability damage) is just as smart as the average Orc, Centaur, or pre-teen human. Thus, I don't understand the claim that 'Int 3 isn't all that different from Int 8, and so can be roleplayed similarily.'

We're not talking about the dumb neighbour. We're talking about the guy who is incapable of being trained to do anything.

He might not be capable of learning a craft or trade, but he can function as an untrained laborer. And there's apparently a market for those. So he's doomed to crushing poverty unless he forges out as an adventurer, but he's still capable of being part of society.

SensFan
2010-11-11, 05:45 PM
He might not be capable of learning a craft or trade, but he can function as an untrained laborer. And there's apparently a market for those. So he's doomed to crushing poverty unless he forges out as an adventurer, but he's still capable of being part of society.
He's probably unfit for anything but "Dan, move this stuff from here to there." Even if he's somehow capable of reading, this is someone who can (by RAW) never know anything that's not common knowledge, about anything. And even if something is "common knowledge" (ie: the stuff everyone of average intelligence knows), he only has a 7/20=35% chance of knowing.

hamishspence
2010-11-11, 05:59 PM
He's probably unfit for anything but "Dan, move this stuff from here to there." Even if he's somehow capable of reading, this is someone who can (by RAW) never know anything that's not common knowledge, about anything.

Unless he has ranks in the relevant Knowledge skills.

As written, nobody without ranks in Knowledge, can make any Knowledge check above DC 10- since checks above DC10 are "Trained Only":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm


Untrained
An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

SensFan
2010-11-11, 06:00 PM
Unless he has ranks in the relevant Knowledge skills.

As written, nobody without ranks in Knowledge, can make any Knowledge check above DC 10- since checks above DC10 are "Trained Only".
...which is my point. He can't have ranks in the Knowledge skill, due to his abysmal Intelligence.

hamishspence
2010-11-11, 06:02 PM
Unless he takes levels in a class that grants a lot of skills (Expert?)

SensFan
2010-11-11, 06:10 PM
Right. Though to me, Commoner has its name for a reason, it's the common folk. Joe Nobody has a 99% chance of being a Commoner as-is, and I doubt Dan Threeint has any chance at all of being a different class.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 06:11 PM
Unless he takes levels in a class that grants a lot of skills (Expert?)

He just needs a class with 5 or more skill points. So Rangers, Rogues, Experts, and Bards in core.

The example character's a barbarian though, I think, so he gets precisely 0 skillpoints without a 1 skillpoint minimum houserule.

Wow... a scenario in which the party horses get more skillpoints than the party barbarian.

Susano-wo
2010-11-11, 09:22 PM
from SRD on Int:( The number of skill points gained each level. (But your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.)

soooo, yeah.Dan Threeint, if he does enough roleplaying, or kills enough monsters to get 2nd lvl, can have a point in knowledge:P
Just not bloody likely:P(unless he's human, then he can do it at 1st. :P)

But yeah, the character in question is Dan3INTBarb, so if he really wanted to know something, he could spend two lvls worth of skills to do so (1lvl if he's human)

grimbold
2010-11-12, 11:25 AM
That I seriously doubt that in any serious campaign setting, that the dumbest farmer alive (if we assume that the average farmer lives a 'normal' life, never encountering magic or ability damage) is just as smart as the average Orc, Centaur, or pre-teen human. Thus, I don't understand the claim that 'Int 3 isn't all that different from Int 8, and so can be roleplayed similarily.'

We're not talking about the dumb neighbour. We're talking about the guy who is incapable of being trained to do anything.

thats a good way to think about it
he can not be taught anything

Dire Moose
2010-11-12, 11:34 AM
My perspective on this comes from a revision I've made to animal intelligence, which i have set at a maximum of 4.

From this perspective, somebody with an Intelligence of 3 is on par with an elephant and a raven. True, this guy would be smarter than your average dog but your average chimp or dolphin would score higher on IQ.