Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thorjarle 12-08-03, 03:33 AM	Hi, my friend are playing a Rogue with a terrible low Wisdom stat. It is down to 3 points ( he threw four ones). How should he play that character? And I play a cleric with +3 in strength. He is 5 feet 11 inches tall. What should he weigh? I have written 160 pounds, but is this too light?
ManTimeForgot 12-08-03, 04:40 AM	a 3 wisdom means that you are dumber than Homer Simpson when it comes to choosing wisely. A 3 wisdom means that you will probably blindly walk into a death chamber without a second thought. Your probably so bound up in your own fantasy world (or inner nightmare) that you would hardly take notice of the ceiling which looks like its rigged to fall and covered with spikes. If Homer Simpson with a 6 wisdom (roughly speaking) is willing to put gallons of lighter fluid on a barbecue and then light it, then your character with a 3 wisdom has got to TOP THAT. The lack of good perception is something else to stress. Your character will likely not notice things period. Simply ignoring or being unaware of the most basic of stimuli. Your character might also be insane, so keep that in mind. Your perception might not have decreased, but simply changed into something unlike reality. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
YoMammasAjedi 12-08-03, 05:21 AM	The rogue with a wisdom of 3 has barely any willpower what so ever, you could play that a million different ways. From a drunken, chain-smoking, adulterer to say, someone with ADD (no offense to anyone) that has a hard time staying focused. Concepts go way over his head 90% of the time and he has no common sense. This is the type of person that would try to leap across a spiked pit and forget that he's wearing fullplate and is heavily encumbered! This is the character that doesn't spot the orcs lying in wait because he was off in La La Land picking his nose or gets the party roasted by the Great Elder Red Wyrm because he was loudly whistling his favorite tune in a deep dungeon while everyone else was trying to move silently! This character could be a blast to play! I have a similar character, he's a half orc/ half ogre with an Int of 6! He's one of my favorite characters ever! As for your cleric, just go by what the PHB says for weight. All that weight can be nothing but ripped muscle, I've seen some pretty cut and ripped little guys in my gym. Hope this helped.
Zelphi 12-08-03, 07:51 AM	A wisdom of 3 is sub beastial... are you sure you shouldn't be re-rolling? It's just rediculously low
DakezDarkenblood 12-08-03, 09:33 AM	I agree. Never, EVER play a mental stat less than 6. 6 is pretty damned dim... those people you hear about that stick appendages into machinery wondering what would happen, or blow themselves up with TNT, or plug a vacuum into a submerged power plug because 'it's a wetvac, so it's ok' and fry themselves. Going below Darwin Award level is dangerous. Heinlein said it best: "Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
ThoughtfulOwl 12-08-03, 09:59 AM	concerning the low-Wis rogue: just consider what is affected by wisdom. Spot & Listen He is so absent-minded that he pays no attention to what happens around him. Sense Motive Implicit meanings and body language are wasted on him; for example, he might not get subtle sarcasm, or he might not notice that a friend is troubled. He also misses social undercurrents and group moods. Survival He isn't good, either, at taking care of his own survival; perhaps he misses good opportunities, or perhaps it is just poor management, but even in a city he would have trouble finding a good job or a cheap lodging. Profession He might even be good at making things (Craft), but he is bound to make a mess of any job requiring organization and managerial skill. Heal You don't want to put a wound under his hands; poor judgement, absent-mindedness or lack or common sense makes him quite a poor healer. Purchase of skill points in any of the above means that he managed to compensate his natural weakness through hard training. Will save He is plain weak-willed; magic attacks aside, he might have quite a few vices, or he might be highly unreliable about holding a strong and persistend commitment. Again, a high Will save despite the low Wisdom means that he strenghtened his willpower through training. Lack of common sense This is his biggest concern; too often, he will make choices without taking into account but the most obvious consequences (and somethimes not even those), like attacking an adversary in the open despite the fact that said adversary wields considerable political power. If he has quite a good Int, he might overanalyze every situation and pursue unnecessarily convoluted solutions in spite of easier ones, especially if the latter require lateral thinking, which he is not good at.
Dasein 12-08-03, 01:57 PM	A wisdom of 3 is effectively unplayable. He's severely mentally handicapped, to the point of requiring almost constant supervision, and he'd be unable to perform most basic tasks like dressing or bathing himself. Chances are, he wouldn't have survived to adulthood with such a disability, especially as most people who suffer from such disabilities also have a host of other medical problems. Dasein
Sussin 12-08-03, 06:02 PM	his character doesn't have a disease! He's just preaty dim... a guy in my party played a character with wis of 6. Because of this he played his character as realy rude and allways shot his mouth off. He had the intelegence to know that being a sorcerer he should hide behind fighters, but it would never cross his mind that peeing into a vase while in the company of royalty was a bad idea.
ManTimeForgot 12-08-03, 07:23 PM	No a wisdom of 3 is a disease. This person has the equivalent of Trisomy (sometimes spelled ie) 13. This person really is too stupid to take care of himself. Bathing, clothing, shelter, etc. would be all but lost concerns on this person. They might occasioanlly remember to change clothes every now an then. Bathing might never occur. And shelter would only be a concern if the immediate surroundings were bad enough to be harmful. Only food, water, and breathing would be within the capability of said person to reason in terms of future necessity (and that is only because they all have biological mechanisms associated with them to remind you when you need to eat, drink, and breathe). A 3 wisdom, without the benefit of a caretaker really would not have survived early childhood, and even with a caretaker when the 6 year old decides to jump into the fire place there is precious little the caretaker can do. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Sussin 12-08-03, 08:10 PM	the characters intelegence doesn't nessisarly corespond to thier low wisdom. So they are not compleatly lost! They just don't have common sence. But even something with a wisdom of 1 will not jump into a fire because there is no reason to do so.
The_Fan 12-08-03, 10:27 PM	I've realistically statted myself out with a wisdom of 6 before, so perhaps some anecdotes on my real life would help... Yesterday I did not notice a golf cart in the middle of a path I was walking on until my girlfriend tugged on my arm and pointed out it was honking at me (low spot, listen) I one time thought it was a good idea to put shower to shower on jock itch (low healing, and for the record that really really hurts) Sarcasm is absolutely lost on me. Everything is literal, and I am a horrible judge of character (low sense motive) Yesterday I went into work not realizing I hadn't showered in two days. I managed to blame it on a lack of laundry detergent. (low survival, can hardly take care of my basic needs) Re: the aforementioned shirt, is it any wonder I can barely get and hold a steady job? (low profession) So, yeah, your character should be worse than that. Consider the implications of that. It's entirely possible to play such a character unlike what the naysayers are saying, it will just be a roleplaying challenge.
Capt. Pixel 12-08-03, 10:51 PM	Sounds like 'Rain Man' to me. (and not much fun to play long term, either. :( )
The_Fan 12-08-03, 10:56 PM	heheh...funny you should mention that. Rain man was autistic, and so am I. I think I make a very fun character in the long run, thank you very much!
Capt. Pixel 12-08-03, 11:02 PM	I'm not a clinical psychologist, but I seem to recall hearing that affliction (if it is indeed an affliction - I could be wrong, it happens regular) ranges from mild to severe. Ole Dustin was portraying a pretty severe case (Wis <4 ?) IIRC
The_Fan 12-09-03, 08:28 AM	Yeah, mine is a pretty mild case. Asperger's syndrome, aka "pathetic geek disorder" And don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit offended. I just thought it was hilarious you made the jump to rain man from the descriptions of myself.
Taran Alvein 12-09-03, 03:11 PM	Make a WIS check every time he has to do something based on common sense, or if he's trying to follow a concept more complicated than "Go over there and kill/rob/whatever that guy." Roll it against DCs that are dependent on the level of common sense/concentration that's required, and, pass or fail, play it out.
Taran Alvein 12-09-03, 03:11 PM	Make a WIS check every time he has to do something based on common sense, or if he's trying to follow a concept more complicated than "Go over there and kill/rob/whatever that guy." Roll it against DCs that are dependent on the level of common sense/concentration that's required, and, pass or fail, play it out.
Phantom Reaper 12-09-03, 05:09 PM	This is what happens when you have a low ability score... Strength=Weak Dexterity=Slow Constitution=Fragile & Low Immunity(I think) Wisdom=Lacks commensense(how do you spell this word) Intelligence=Dumb Charisma=Lonely(no friends) Correct me if I'm wrong
Phantom Reaper 12-09-03, 05:09 PM	This is what happens when you have a low ability score... Strength=Weak Dexterity=Slow Constitution=Fragile & Low Immunity(I think) Wisdom=Lacks commensense(how do you spell this word) Intelligence=Dumb Charisma=Lonely(no friends) Correct me if I'm wrong
Elenna 12-09-03, 05:39 PM	I picture a character like this as a savant (spelling). Like that mentally handicapped character from the movie "Cube". I think a character with very low wisdom wouldn't have the drive to be adventuring. Maybe keep the character as a NPC sibling of one of the other party members. And, I'd have your player roll up another character.
Bacon and Eggs 12-09-03, 06:10 PM	Low wisdom, no sweat. Go digital. Play the character like a computer. Somebody with perhaps all the smarts/ability in the world but works on a limited set of logic. Their survivability depends if they were brought up around people that they could trust to inform them on how things work. Have them conflicted with whatever logic that they may have. Write it down, it makes it easier. Then you can get into all of those "I Robot" situations where one self directive equally weighs with another and the character is at a standstill until something significant changes their opinion on the situation. That would represent their own inability to rely on their own "gut sense". Play it, and have fun.
Tharkos 12-09-03, 06:26 PM	"Real" roleplaying shouldnt centre on the actual stats, i.e. "how to roleplay STR 18" is a wrong question IMO. Roleplaying centres around the attitudes, skills and behaviour of a character but not the stats. All those might be influenced by the stats (i.e. STR 18 meaning he sees himself as "the strong dude" and has to "help the weaklings" ...) but high stats can push you in quite a few different directions, so other preferences need to determine "how to roleplay". A STR 18 might either be "roleplayed" as a bullying or unfriendly person OR as a person who likes to help others who arent that strong ... but really this is a "mental attitude" and has nothing to do with STR 18. The same is true for INT 18 ... either as an arrogant and impolite person or as a helpful teacher. To get a truly "3-dimensional character" you need to determine non-adventuring things like: - Which hobbies does the character pursue in "downtime" ?(i.e. when NOT adventuring) - What does he fear or dislike ? - What is his favorite food / drink ? - How does he react towards members of the opposite gender ? - .... Little "unimportant" things really make the character come alive because those let him become more than just a bunch of numbers.
Dasein 12-09-03, 06:44 PM	A 3 wisdom, however, isn't merely a bit weak-willed or impulsive, it is the lowest possible for a human being, and as such, directly impacts how the character is capable of interacting with the world. While there are different possible ways of roleplaying such a character, none of them lend themselves to much in the way of adventuring. Playing the savant type doesn't make much sense of the character doesn't have a high intelligence to go with it, and even then, such a character would not work well as a player character. I could see an NPC savant type working well, but as a PC, he will be a burden on the other players and while he may be useful in a couple of instances, it will quickly become a gimick if there's th one trap or puzzle in each session that only this character can overcome. Frankly, if I were an adventurer in a party with this character, I'd find a way to leave him at the nearest temple of Illmater or some other benevolent deity so that he doesn't end up getting us or himself killed. Dasein
Phist 12-10-03, 12:20 AM	I'd have to say that that's unplayable. Have him bad mouth some giant and let his not-so-dim brother fill his spot in a party. Consider that basic survival notwithstanding, "adventurer" is a profession that requires high all around fitness AND a fairly good mind. Even if he did survive to adulthood he would not join a group of skilled adventurers, they would never want someone like that in their party. Maybe if he was a figher or a mage (I have a friend planing to be a mad scientist (high int low wis)) but a rogue just wouldn't do. Rouges are supposed to be the party's cool head, the one that does everything but combat. I know I'm generalizing and bragging about rogues but the true is that I dont even play a rogue. I just find that when we have to do something skill-related we turn to our rogue more than anyone else, as is to be expected with their massive amout of skill points.
Oakspar77777 12-10-03, 01:07 AM	Hmm, there are several architypes that would have a low wisdom. Serial addict - no self control. does whatever seems right in the moment Dumb Blonde - able to memorize the numbers of a dozen differnt jocks and girlfriends, but also thinks that chicken of the sea is made of chicken. Denise the Menace - repeatedly does distructive things to self and others that he cares about, but does not understand the consequences of his actions. The Push Over - gullible. Tends to go with the crowd and do whatever someone tells him to do. No judge of character. Just consider him "charmed" to anyone he comes accross. Super Geek - focused on intellegence to the total detriment of common sence (and usually Charisma as well). Phobiac - afraid of anything and everything Physically limited - poor vision and hearing Atheistic - no faith in anything or anyone. no trust, understanding, etc. Hope some of those help.
Tharkos 12-10-03, 04:17 AM	Originally posted by Dasein A 3 wisdom, however, isn't merely a bit weak-willed or impulsive, it is the lowest possible for a human being, and as such, directly impacts how the character is capable of interacting with the world. He might be a "handicapped" idiot who cant speak a coherent sentence at all or he might be a happy childlike person who just does things for fun without seeing the consequences. Again there are two rather opposite ways of playing a character and saying "I would leave him if I could" is metagaming due to the stats and shows quite a lot of prejudices. If you dont want to play a character with low stats thats fine, but dont expect everyone else to do it as well. If I was choosey with whom my character is adventuring I would have to kick two of the other "weak dudes" who have STR scores below 10.
Dasein 12-10-03, 10:42 AM	I think people are confusing a low attribute, which would be in the 6-10 range with what can only be described as a crippling disability, which would be an attirbute below a 6. A 3 is the lowest possible for a human, and as such, it makes that character virtually impossible to play as they would not be capable of doing the things a normal adventurer could do. A character with a wisdom of 3 would not be a happy, child-like person, he would be the type who has no concept of causality, no sense of the continuity of time - he would continually get lost in the moment, staring at some minor detail, perhaps a pretty flower or interesting pattern in a rock. He would have no concept of actions having consequences, which would directly limit his ability both to take care of himself and to interact with other people. He'd be incapable of performing even basic tasks like getting dressed or bathed or using the bathroom without close supervision. In short, even today, he'd require a lifetime of institutionalization, and with close training, he may make some progress to the point where he could follow routine patterns to perform basic tasks, he would never approach normal functionality. Again there are two rather opposite ways of playing a character and saying "I would leave him if I could" is metagaming due to the stats and shows quite a lot of prejudices. It's not metagmaing, as the handicap would show quite clearly in the character's behavior, and there is no prejudice in refusing to send a man to his death because he is incapable of taking care of himself. The compassionate and just thing to do would be to see that this person gets the care they need, not to treat him as if nothing is wrong until he gets eaten by the dragon because he was too busy counting the coins in the dragon's treasure hoard. If you dont want to play a character with low stats thats fine, but dont expect everyone else to do it as well. If I was choosey with whom my character is adventuring I would have to kick two of the other "weak dudes" who have STR scores below 10. A sub-ten score is not the same as a 3. A character with a strength of 8 is a bit on the weak side for a human, but still quite capable of taking care of himself, especially if the character is a mage or other non-melee type. A character with a strength of 3, however, would likely have a difficult time supporting his own weight, and would be incapable of walking or other physical activity. Dasein
Taran Alvein 12-10-03, 03:50 PM	That's another thing. I hadn't thought of the savant approach. Though, walking around the dungeons then curling up into a ball whenever you enter a room with lots of fire and saying "Blue... room. B-blue... room." over and over might get on the nerves of your compatriots. So basically, either stick it out with this character and actively try to get him killed by doing stupid stuff, or ask your DM if you can make a new character.
Oakspar77777 12-10-03, 07:27 PM	Hmmm....goes arround "spacing" out and looking at "shiney" things. Sees alot of things that are not there (Illusions) and is willing to do anything he is told to (Charms). Afraid of his own shadow. .....doesn't sound hard to roleplay at all, he is just stoned off his backside. :drool:
The_Fan 12-12-03, 08:19 AM	Originally posted by Dasein A sub-ten score is not the same as a 3. A character with a strength of 8 is a bit on the weak side for a human, but still quite capable of taking care of himself, especially if the character is a mage or other non-melee type. A character with a strength of 3, however, would likely have a difficult time supporting his own weight, and would be incapable of walking or other physical activity. Dasein No, a character with a strenght of 3 is still functional, just probably disabled. By DEFAULT they can move their own weight and walk (that only occurs when reduced to 0 strength), but let's look at what such a wimp could actually carry: Light load: 10 lbs Medium load: 20 lbs heavy load: 30 lbs lift off ground: 60 Drag: 150 So yeah, pathetically weak, but the character's own weight is already factored in so even a strenght 3 person would still be playable. Most likely have some sort of degenerative muscular disorder, but still be playable.
Tharkos 12-12-03, 09:15 AM	Originally posted by The_Fan No, a character with a strenght of 3 is still functional, just probably disabled. By DEFAULT they can move their own weight and walk (that only occurs when reduced to 0 strength), but let's look at what such a wimp could actually carry: Light load: 10 lbs Medium load: 20 lbs heavy load: 30 lbs lift off ground: 60 Drag: 150 So yeah, pathetically weak, but the character's own weight is already factored in so even a strenght 3 person would still be playable. Most likely have some sort of degenerative muscular disorder, but still be playable. Exactly the point ... VERY handicapped as a PC but STILL PLAYABLE if you want it. If life was without its challenges it would be pretty boring and this IS a challenge, just because it is different. Playing such a character and trying to understand the problems associated with it might give some useful insights for REAL LIFE ... The big question for all those "no I wont associate with such a character" people is: Where do you draw the line ? Is it at scores 3, 4, 5 or maybe even higher and why there ? This has always been a problem with "racial purists" who didnt want to be seen with disabled people or other races. The only real solution to this (even for REAL LIFE) is to ignore "differences" in other people and take each individual as it presents itself and stay clear of any generalizing rules of conduct.
Palin the Wizard 12-12-03, 09:26 AM	Dasein has got the right of it--such a character would be unplayable.
DakezDarkenblood 12-12-03, 09:41 AM	Originally posted by Tharkos The big question for all those "no I wont associate with such a character" people is: Where do you draw the line ? Is it at scores 3, 4, 5 or maybe even higher and why there ? This has always been a problem with "racial purists" who didnt want to be seen with disabled people or other races. The only real solution to this (even for REAL LIFE) is to ignore "differences" in other people and take each individual as it presents itself and stay clear of any generalizing rules of conduct. 6 int 6 wisdom 6 con That's where I draw the line for individual attributes. Lower than 6 in any of those puts you firmly into 'menace to yourself or others' catergory. I tend to play good aligned characters who could never be callous enough to let a disabled person do something as inherrantly dangerous as adventure. A low wisdom character would fall asleep on watch if they got tired. They'd also burst into song when the party was trying to be stealthy if they felt like bursting into song. Or screaming. Or punching the closest party member in the face. Even animals have wisdoms higher than 3 ... so he has less awareness of his surroundings and less mental resiliance than a housecat. Which is, given how easy they are to distract with string, a very scary thing.
Dasein 12-12-03, 12:39 PM	Exactly the point ... VERY handicapped as a PC but STILL PLAYABLE if you want it. If life was without its challenges it would be pretty boring and this IS a challenge, just because it is different. Playing such a character and trying to understand the problems associated with it might give some useful insights for REAL LIFE ... The difference is, while a challenge for the rest of the party would be going out to stop the orc warlord or rampaging dragon, a challenge for you would be getting a meal ready and getting dressed. The big question for all those "no I wont associate with such a character" people is: Where do you draw the line ? Is it at scores 3, 4, 5 or maybe even higher and why there ? In character, I would draw the line at the point where a person's lack of ability presents a direct threat to me, my companions, the individual and society. A character with a strength of 3 would not be capable of dragging my unconscious body out of harms way, and thus, I could not reasonably trust that character with my life. Adventuring is dangerous business, and I would not want tobring along someone incapable of performing up to par when called upon. I see an adventuring team as something like a special forces unit in the military - not everyone is cut out for it mentally or physically. This has always been a problem with "racial purists" who didnt want to be seen with disabled people or other races. The only real solution to this (even for REAL LIFE) is to ignore "differences" in other people and take each individual as it presents itself and stay clear of any generalizing rules of conduct. Ignoring differences is absurd and impossible without as heavy dose of Orwellian double-think. A parapalegic has an obvious disability, and certain accomodations must be made so that such a person can function normally in society. A person with severe autism has a disease, and treating him like nothing is wrong is doing that person a disservice. He needs special care much like someone with cancer would. Dasein
Tharkos 12-13-03, 07:57 AM	Originally posted by Dasein The difference is, while a challenge for the rest of the party would be going out to stop the orc warlord or rampaging dragon, a challenge for you would be getting a meal ready and getting dressed. Well thats exactly the point ... maybe you need to ask other people for help and arrange that, maybe you can get things done in a different way ... Originally posted by Dasein In character, I would draw the line at the point where a person's lack of ability presents a direct threat to me, my companions, the individual and society. A character with a strength of 3 would not be capable of dragging my unconscious body out of harms way, and thus, I could not reasonably trust that character with my life. Adventuring is dangerous business, and I would not want tobring along someone incapable of performing up to par when called upon. I see an adventuring team as something like a special forces unit in the military - not everyone is cut out for it mentally or physically. So you are one of the selfish ones who only likes other people who can do things for you? Maybe that STR 3 character is the one with the INT 20 as well and can save your butt in another situation? I had a Wizard with a 9 STR and she carried enough equipment to be just at the limit of encumbrance. Our group got into a fight with some shadows and two of our fighters (who wore metal armor) fell to some undead. Do you think I would have been strong enough to drag them fast enough from the battlefield ? NOPE. So I didnt even try to get any one of those bodies onto a horse because it wouldnt have worked and killed me as well. My wizard was a core element of the groups adventuring ability, but luckily she didnt get "thrown out" because she couldnt drag an armored fighter from the battlefield in a round or two. Originally posted by Dasein Ignoring differences is absurd and impossible without as heavy dose of Orwellian double-think. A parapalegic has an obvious disability, and certain accomodations must be made so that such a person can function normally in society. A person with severe autism has a disease, and treating him like nothing is wrong is doing that person a disservice. He needs special care much like someone with cancer would. Low abilities dont mean you are handicapped (autism, spasmic behaviour, ...). You just have a different limit / capacity. Using your favorite attribute of strength I would point out that Pixies or other very small races have pretty low STR scores. Your groups characters better stay clear of resurrection in case they get reborn as a low STR race and get kicked from the group by you. Low INT might just mean you are "simple minded" but that is also playable. A DM has to play a lot of low INT creatures and they can survive in the world, can they ? Anyone who hasnt tried playing a character with a low ability score should do so. You need to adjust your view of the game to a different perspective and that is a creative challenge. Playing Superman all the time is boring.
Tharkos 12-13-03, 08:04 AM	Originally posted by DakezDarkenblood 6 int 6 wisdom 6 con That is for your own or for others characters ??? Btw. ... CHA <6 could be a bigger nuisance because that character might get you into trouble in towns and at royal courts. It doesnt have to though since you can play low CHA in different ways.
Tharkos 12-13-03, 08:08 AM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard Dasein has got the right of it--such a character would be unplayable. He is trying to force OTHERS in his group to stop playing such a character as well ... thats what I am annoyed about (I call that intolerance). If you decide for your own characters not to have a low score that is ok (but I still say you would be missing a great RPing experience).
evangelion1010 12-13-03, 09:53 AM	in general, i'm compelled to agree... low stats people aren't good adventurers, and there is no logical reason why they should unless they have say a 3 in one stat, but 18 16 15 14 13 or so in others, in which case his character has near super human abilities in other stats to compenstate for one or two very low ones... hopefully both in mental or physical
DakezDarkenblood 12-13-03, 11:53 AM	Originally posted by Tharkos That is for your own or for others characters ??? Btw. ... CHA <6 could be a bigger nuisance because that character might get you into trouble in towns and at royal courts. It doesnt have to though since you can play low CHA in different ways. For both. Why would I hold a different standard to myself than I would for others? If I rolled up a character and had to put a six or less into any of those three attributes I'd make another character. I had considered charisma. It really is pretty harsh. It's not just your physical appearance or attitude (though, judging from who gets charisma penalties... it really is)... it's also your force of personality. A really low charisma character wouldn't be particularly assertive and so wouldn't be the one you would want to negotiate for your release if you were captured. Low wisdom, low charisma would be a bad mix. It would be the person who betrays the group for the 'love of his life'... some doppelganger posing as a woman. Hell, since literature has us believe that high wisdom, high charisma heroes do this it would stand to reason that a low wisdom, low charisma character would do it for the first woman who smiled at him.
Tharkos 12-13-03, 12:47 PM	Originally posted by DakezDarkenblood Why would I hold a different standard to myself than I would for others? That is the point I am trying to make ... but sadly the wrong side, since I dont believe you have the right to ask other people to play by your standards. You SHOULD only do that for yourself. Other players like different challenges / ways of play and if you try to force your own rules on them that is "bad style" (consider that the politest description I was willing to give). If you are arrogant enough to believe your own opinion is best for everyone else and thus they need to follow your rules I can only advise some deep meditation on that. I wouldnt dream of telling you how to play but I would like to decide that for myself. In real life this equates to something like respecting other cultures, religions, ways of doing things or races. There have been too many people already who knew what was best for everyone and it would be better for humanity if people didnt do it again ...
Dasein 12-13-03, 02:20 PM	He is trying to force OTHERS in his group to stop playing such a character as well ... thats what I am annoyed about (I call that intolerance). If you decide for your own characters not to have a low score that is ok (but I still say you would be missing a great RPing experience). I am doing nothing of the sort. As a player, I would not force any other player to play in a certain manner at all. How a player plays his or her character is up to that player. As a DM, I tend to prohibit attribute scores below 8 (prior to racial mods). In character, however, my characters would likely not want to go adventuring with someone with such an obvious disability as presented by an attribute of 3. This is no different than a paladin refusing to adventure with evil character, for example. Dasein
Tharkos 12-13-03, 03:20 PM	Originally posted by Dasein Frankly, if I were an adventurer in a party with this character, I'd find a way to leave him at the nearest temple of Illmater or some other benevolent deity so that he doesn't end up getting us or himself killed. Dasein So you arent doing anything of the sort, eh ?????? How do I have to interpret that paragraph then ???
Tharkos 12-13-03, 03:21 PM	Originally posted by Dasein In character, I would draw the line at the point where a person's lack of ability presents a direct threat to me, my companions, the individual and society. A character with a strength of 3 would not be capable of dragging my unconscious body out of harms way, and thus, I could not reasonably trust that character with my life. Adventuring is dangerous business, and I would not want tobring along someone incapable of performing up to par when called upon. I see an adventuring team as something like a special forces unit in the military - not everyone is cut out for it mentally or physically. Dasein You REALLY arent doing anything of the sort ???
Dasein 12-13-03, 03:43 PM	There is a difference between describing actions that I would take in character and actions I would take as a player. You seem to be confusing the two. Out of character, as a player, it is not my place to say how anyone else should play their characters, or what their attributes should be. In character, I am free to chose who my character would want to associate with. These are actions my character would take based on the personality I am playing. For example, if I were to play a character who is prejudiced against orcs, and half-orcs by extension, and he refused to consider a half-orc character as a real member of the party, am I preventing someon from playing a half-orc? Characters do not have to accept other characters simply because they are PCs rather than NPCs. Dasein
YoMammasAjedi 12-13-03, 05:19 PM	I may be going out on a limb here but could'nt the opposite be said for people with really high ability scores. Heres what I mean, a character with high strength might not go adventuring because he's the only one strong enough in the villiage to perform a certain job, or he's too busy bullying people out of their money, etc. A character with a high dex would say something like "Why would i risk adventuring when i make a killing picking everyones pockets in town?" or juggling etc. A character with a high Con might say something like, "I'm as healthy as can be, why would i risk it adventuring?" A character with a high Int could be too caught up in his studies, or he might be the village doctor or something of that nature that requires his intelligence. A character with a high Wis, much like the one with Con would say "Adventuring is dangerous business, it isn't wise to risk life and limb on some foolish quest for shineys!" and a high Charisma character would be the best "Adventure!?! And risk breaking a nail!!!" :rofl: Just a thought.:D
Dasein 12-13-03, 05:29 PM	There's a difference between motivation and ability, however. There are countless reasons that character's of all levels of ability would not want to adventure, but there are also some characters who simply shouldn't adventure or at least have a very short career of it if they tried. Dasein
Tharkos 12-14-03, 05:06 AM	Originally posted by Dasein Out of character, as a player, it is not my place to say how anyone else should play their characters, or what their attributes should be. Look at what you wrote yourself: "Frankly, if I were an adventurer in a party with this character, I'd find a way to leave him at the nearest temple of Illmater or some other benevolent deity so that he doesn't end up getting us or himself killed.". This was one of your examples of how to react to someone in the group with a very low wisdom. Now tell me again how you arent forcing another character to drop his own character (after he has been part of the group already) and start a new one .... That sentence sounds "caring" but it really isnt because that dude was one of your friends and you simply drop him at the nearest temple to get rid of him instead of trying to help him yourself (because he was a part of the group already and should be something of a friend). Originally posted by Dasein In character, I am free to chose who my character would want to associate with. These are actions my character would take based on the personality I am playing. For example, if I were to play a character who is prejudiced against orcs, and half-orcs by extension, and he refused to consider a half-orc character as a real member of the party, am I preventing someon from playing a half-orc? Characters do not have to accept other characters simply because they are PCs rather than NPCs. Dasein All your previous examples were of the general sort and they were written in a way to assume you meant characters who are in the party already. If one of your buddies got cursed, poisoned, contracted a bad disease or if the wizard decided he likes being a pixie all the time dropping their stats to a pretty low number you would stop associating with them. This quote has you turning around and saying that you might only do it when the "character has a reason" and that wasnt the case before. We are talking about the attributes and not the race of a character in this post btw. so this comment about half-orc isnt on topic here. Originally posted by Dasein There is a difference between describing actions that I would take in character and actions I would take as a player. You seem to be confusing the two. I was just pointing out your comments proclaimed you as an "ability elitist" who wasnt willing to associate with "weaklings" ... even if other people were willing to play them. Especially the example which you gave for STR was - Moderators please excuse this expression - pretty dumb, because if your character falls in battle how is my character going to drag YOU to safety when the battle still rages on ? If the battle has ended there is no more need for dragging. Even a character with STR 10 cant hope to drag an armored fighter to safety fast enough because their own gear probably has them near the encumbrance limit already. To this I can only say: "Ask not what other charcters can do for you, ask what you can do for other characters." If anyone wants to play a character with a low attribute they should feel free to do so and there are numerous ways to it as well for each of the six attributes. Every idiot can play someone with only high stats ... but it is a challenge to play a character with a low attribute or two.
Shorn 12-14-03, 08:53 AM	The easiest way to play a character with a wisdom that low is for the character to attach himself to another PC: "What do I do now, Boss?" Work out before the adventure begins how those two characters met, and enjoy roleplaying the dynamics of that relationship.
Tharkos 12-14-03, 09:46 AM	Originally posted by Shorn The easiest way to play a character with a wisdom that low is for the character to attach himself to another PC: "What do I do now, Boss?" Work out before the adventure begins how those two characters met, and enjoy roleplaying the dynamics of that relationship. Exactly ... one way to play it without having a to play a mental disorder (and without the exact stat being totally obvious). Rumor has it there are some people who dont even want to know the exact stats of other players characters.
Dasein 12-14-03, 01:10 PM	This was one of your examples of how to react to someone in the group with a very low wisdom. Now tell me again how you arent forcing another character to drop his own character (after he has been part of the group already) and start a new one .... I have no power to force this character to stay at the temple or to engage in any other behavior. Further, you seem to be under the assumption that the characters (not players) with whom my character would be adventuring are good friends. This is not the case, and in one campaign I've been playing in for the past couple of years, the main PCs rarely get along. I suppose I am used to a bit more mature play style than you are, and our group can accept that PCs will not magically get along simply because they are PCs. That sentence sounds "caring" but it really isnt because that dude was one of your friends and you simply drop him at the nearest temple to get rid of him instead of trying to help him yourself (because he was a part of the group already and should be something of a friend). By turning him over to people who are capable of helping him, I am doing what I can. If I am playing a fighter with no healing knowledge or no magical ability, what should I do to help if not turn him over to those people who have deicated their lives to helping the sick and disabled? All your previous examples were of the general sort and they were written in a way to assume you meant characters who are in the party already. If one of your buddies got cursed, poisoned, contracted a bad disease or if the wizard decided he likes being a pixie all the time dropping their stats to a pretty low number you would stop associating with them. This quote has you turning around and saying that you might only do it when the "character has a reason" and that wasnt the case before. Curses, poisons and diseases are all reversable conditions, so that point is moot. As for the wizard, a pixie's stats are suitable for that race, and again, that is not a permanent transformation. Even still, you equate not adventuring with someone as not associating with them, which is unture. In character, I would associate with a number of people who I do not adventure with (either at all or at that specific time). In your example, let's say a character did catch a disease that lowered all his physical attributes to 3. Now, this disease will be temporary, but he'll be in this weakened state for a few weeks. In the meantime, we get word that the creature that inflicted this disease is on the move and has to be stopped. Would it be fair to the character who is weakend to be dragged along on this hunt, even though he'd likely just end up getting killed? Would you consider it a good action to force a person to engage in activities he is not capable of surviving? We are talking about the attributes and not the race of a character in this post btw. so this comment about half-orc isnt on topic here. We're talking about inherent qualities of the character, so race is on topic for the discussion in which you and I are engaged. I was just pointing out your comments proclaimed you as an "ability elitist" who wasnt willing to associate with "weaklings" ... even if other people were willing to play them. Elitism? Try realism - the reality is that someone with an attribute of 3 is severely disabled and not fit for the life of adventuring. That person is not inferior or worthless, but hunting dragons and delving into dungeons will just get them killed, and it is not fair to either the individual or the people who may have to count on that person to force the character to engage in actions he is not capable of performing. Especially the example which you gave for STR was - Moderators please excuse this expression - pretty dumb, because if your character falls in battle how is my character going to drag YOU to safety when the battle still rages on ? If the battle has ended there is no more need for dragging. Even a character with STR 10 cant hope to drag an armored fighter to safety fast enough because their own gear probably has them near the encumbrance limit already. Here's an example: The fighter has been knocked unconcious due to wounds. While he's stabilied, he cannot move and will not be capable of moving for some time. You're in the bottom of a dungeon that is slowly being flooded, and while you have time to strip the fighter of his armor and other equipment, you wouldn't have the time to wait for him to regain his consciousness. Thus, it is up to you to get him out, or he dies. It is a common expectation among those who willing put their lives in danger - soldiers, firefighters, etc. - that one be able to carry a wounded or fallen comrade out of danager, and I would see that as a reasonable and practical minimum requirement for strength to go adventuring. To this I can only say: "Ask not what other charcters can do for you, ask what you can do for other characters." Does this apply to the person with a strenght of 3, too? Perhaps the best thing a person can do for the party is not join. If anyone wants to play a character with a low attribute they should feel free to do so and there are numerous ways to it as well for each of the six attributes. Every idiot can play someone with only high stats ... but it is a challenge to play a character with a low attribute or two. A low attribute, in say the 7-9 range is not the same by any means as a attribute in the 3-4 range, just as a attribute of 16 is not the same as a 25, even though both could be considered 'high'. Of course, nothing is stopping the player from playing such a character, but at the same time, my character should be free to adventure with whom he pleases. Also, as a matter of ettiquette, when creating a character, it is a good idea to take into consideration what the other players want and what the potential party needs. D&D is a social game, and so everyone should be asking what their character contributes to the party, and if they'd be more of a help than a burden. Dasein
DakezDarkenblood 12-15-03, 08:55 AM	Originally posted by Tharkos That is the point I am trying to make ... but sadly the wrong side, since I dont believe you have the right to ask other people to play by your standards. You SHOULD only do that for yourself. Other players like different challenges / ways of play and if you try to force your own rules on them that is "bad style" (consider that the politest description I was willing to give). If you are arrogant enough to believe your own opinion is best for everyone else and thus they need to follow your rules I can only advise some deep meditation on that. I wouldnt dream of telling you how to play but I would like to decide that for myself. In real life this equates to something like respecting other cultures, religions, ways of doing things or races. There have been too many people already who knew what was best for everyone and it would be better for humanity if people didnt do it again ... Of course I have the right to ask others to play the way I want them to. They have the right to say no. I then have the right to make their experience miserable by properly roleplaying the reaction of my character to their inability to function. They then have the right to storm from the table or punch me. Plenty of rights to go around... but why not nip it in the bud? A 90 pound man cannot be a firefighter. A myopic person cannot be a pilot. An inhumanly low statted character (6 or less, remember... I don't care if you play a dumb, easily manipulated half-orc with a 6 int and an 8 charisma. That's your call.) cannot be an adventurer. And there have been plenty of people who HAVE forced others to follow their way of thought. It's called civilization, and straying from it has severe social reprecussions and often a loss of personal freedom or life. In the end if someone really wanted to play a dwarf with a 3 intelligence who could barely gurgle his own name yet miraculously was intelligent enough to master the use of a warhammer and donning armor that's their call. I will NOT suspend disbelief to the point where any of my characters (save one who has a 6 intelligence himself and would love to be the brains of the party... and promptly get everyone killed, really. He's managed to get himself killed several times.) would believe that someone only a little smarter than a dog can either be a valueable companion OR my own opinion that you couldn't take class levels in anything save PERHAPS barbarian with such an attribute. I would not let a 5 year old join the police force in my neighborhood in real life... why would I let someone with the mentality of a 5 year old join an adventuring party in character? Unless, of course, I am playing Dakez. He's always on the look out for more trap disarmers and damage sponges. Of course he'd likely animate you instead of raising you when you met your inevitable end if you roleplayed the stat properly. If you were a skeleton or zombie, after all, you'd have an EXCUSE to be mindless.
Mith 12-15-03, 10:10 PM	It would be unconscionable to adventure with somebody with a stat of lower than 6. 6 really isn't that bad, especially in charisma say, but any lower than that makes that character a threat to himself and everybody around him.
The_Fan 12-16-03, 12:14 PM	Let's look at this one more time, shall we? What skills does low wisdom affect? This character has a -4 to spot, heal, listen, survival, profession, and sense motive. He has a -4 to will saves and wisdom checks, which means he is weak willed, vulnerable to mind control, and easily swayed by diplomatic means. He is also easily bullied and intimidated. He does not have a penalty at all to half the things you have mentioned. He is entirely capable of moving silent, being diplomatic, etc. He is also playing a rogue, which means that he is entirely capable of negating half the penalties above at *first level*, which would mean he has made a concious effort to overcome those disabilities. So, what does this translate to? At level 1, he would have a -3 on his check vs. intimidation, meaning he would be easily cowed. Assuming that meeting your own basic survival needs in a city is a DC 5 survival check (and that seems a bit high), he has a -4 to the check assuming he puts no skills into it. If he takes 10, he has a 6, meaning he can meet his own basic needs Again, assuming no ranks in listen (but what rogue wouldn';t have that?), and assuming he rolled a 10, he would miss the sound of people talking if they were 60 feet away from him, and an armored person moving slowly if he was 10 feet away. This is pretty bad, but fairly specific. The same principle applies to the other skills. He's a bad healer, he has a poor spot, and he's a poor judge of character. However, ALL of this, aside from the will saves and the intimidation, can be offset, making him perfectly functional, by 4 skill ranks. 4. As a rogue, he can do this at first level, and for out of class skills by 5th. In other words, it is entirely possible for him to overcome his disability. Gee, what an idea. A character working to overcome a major disability. It almost sounds like a roleplaying opportunity, but maybe that's just me.
Dasein 12-16-03, 12:32 PM	The Fan, you're ignoring what the attribute actually represents. A Wisdom of 3 is not simply a few penalties to some skills, it is the lowest possible for a human, and thus the disability posed goes well beyond the strict mechanics of skill checks. While in strict mechanics terms, you're right, the penalties don't seem too bad, but at the same time, a character with an intelligence of 25 doesn't seem to smart. In fact, given that skill bonuses increase arthimatically, a character with stats of all 25s or all 40s isn't that much more powerful than a character with stats in 10-16 range. However, for those of us who look past the raw numbers, it becomes obvious that while the mechnical effects may be linear, the actual benefits of extremely high or low skills should be geometric, and play them as such. Dasein
The_Fan 12-16-03, 12:36 PM	I should just pull out of this argument since, as someone who is himself disabled, it's gotten too personal. But I still hold my position that such a character is more a roleplaying opportunity than a liability.
Dasein 12-16-03, 12:49 PM	But I still hold my position that such a character is more a roleplaying opportunity than a liability. The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. However, I think that it is somewhat unfair for a single player to be able to dictate the tempo of the entire game by creating a character with a very low attribute. It forces the other players to pick up the slack where that character is lacking, and forces the DM to either put the character up against challenges he cannot likely overcome or tailor the encounters so as not to kill the weaker character. Dasein
thorjarle 12-16-03, 02:41 PM	Hello all! Well, I got alot of response on this question :) I must admit that I think that being mentally disabled is a bit overkill. I dont see 3 in wis like that. The player plays the rogue like she is very ignorant and goes for the shiny glasspearl instead of the pile of gold-coins. We in the party dont feel like we are covering any slack, and we have alot of fun roleplaying with her in the group. Sometimes the bad score in wisdom have helped us in getting alot of info, cause she, unknowingly, lures info out of the bad guy. The bottom line, the GM dont think its a disability, the player dont think it is a disability, and the party dont think it is a... disability. So it is just a fun roleplaying opportunity :) Hehe, my cleric with 19 in wis and she with 3 has alot of fun conversations :)
Tharkos 12-16-03, 05:03 PM	Originally posted by Dasein The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. However, I think that it is somewhat unfair for a single player to be able to dictate the tempo of the entire game by creating a character with a very low attribute. It forces the other players to pick up the slack where that character is lacking, and forces the DM to either put the character up against challenges he cannot likely overcome or tailor the encounters so as not to kill the weaker character. Dasein Thats nonsense ... if the other player has a very low stat why do you bother ? He should be dead ASAP by your own fears ... because he cant save against spells well enough or pull himself up a ledge to save himself. You are the one who is trying to dictate the tempo by forcing people not to play these characters ... its metagaming too btw because you shouldnt actually know that other character has a 3 in wisdom.
Dasein 12-16-03, 05:29 PM	Thats nonsense ... if the other player has a very low stat why do you bother ? He should be dead ASAP by your own fears ... because he cant save against spells well enough or pull himself up a ledge to save himself. Do you agree or disagree that a character with an extremely low stat is less likely to survive an encounter appropriate to its level than a character with average or above average stats? Further, do you agree that some stats are going to be more important for survivability, especially at low levels? As DM, you now have two options: treat the character like he has no disability, and throw encounters at the party that are appropriate for the level knowing that the character and perhaps other characters are more likely to die, or lower the challenge to compensate for this one weaker character. You are the one who is trying to dictate the tempo by forcing people not to play these characters ... No, I am not forcing anyone to do anything, I have merely stated how my characters would likely respond to such characters. You seem to be under the impression that any sort of roleplaying that does not take into account the metagame knowledge that a character is, in fact, a PC, is a form of coercion. its metagaming too btw because you shouldnt actually know that other character has a 3 in wisdom. Stats have outward manifestations that would be quite obvious withina short period of time. It wouldn't take long to figure out that a character has a very low wisdom or strength or dexterity or any other stat - stats to either extreme would be readily appearent after even a short amount of interaction or observation. Referring to the numeric quantities simply makes it easier, as we can agree that a 3 wisdom is a 3 wisdom, while 'low' wisdom is subjective - for some it may be 3, for other 8 and still others 12. Dasein
Deekin 12-16-03, 05:41 PM	Read about Kender from dragonlance. They have a racial -10 to wis, I swear.
Tharkos 12-17-03, 01:45 AM	Originally posted by Dasein Do you agree or disagree that a character with an extremely low stat is less likely to survive an encounter appropriate to its level than a character with average or above average stats? Further, do you agree that some stats are going to be more important for survivability, especially at low levels? As DM, you now have two options: treat the character like he has no disability, and throw encounters at the party that are appropriate for the level knowing that the character and perhaps other characters are more likely to die, or lower the challenge to compensate for this one weaker character. A low stat will create problems for a character, but THAT IS THE CHALLENGE ... to overcome those challenges and negate the disadvantages through different behaviour. I can only repeat myself that it is easy to play a character with all good stats but it is a challenge to play one with one or two low stats and some people like a challenge once in a while ... you apparently do not. Originally posted by Dasein No, I am not forcing anyone to do anything, I have merely stated how my characters would likely respond to such characters. You seem to be under the impression that any sort of roleplaying that does not take into account the metagame knowledge that a character is, in fact, a PC, is a form of coercion. Why do you bother at all about OTHER PEOLES stats ? If they want to play that character (maybe because that guy with the 3 in one stat has 3 18s in other stats ?) then let them. IF A LOW STAT IS A PROBLEM FOR SURVIVABILITY THE PROBLEM WILL CORRECT ITSELF DUE TO PC DEATH ... so why bother ? How exactly is a reaction like "dropping him off at the next temple of Ilmater" not forcing a player to make a new character ? After all you yourself state that it takes a little time to get to know the "stats" of someone else (which I doubt is that easy for INT or WIS ) and some people may even like the proverbial "dumb blonde": Originally posted by Dasein Stats have outward manifestations that would be quite obvious withina short period of time. It wouldn't take long to figure out that a character has a very low wisdom or strength or dexterity or any other stat - stats to either extreme would be readily appearent after even a short amount of interaction or observation. Referring to the numeric quantities simply makes it easier, as we can agree that a 3 wisdom is a 3 wisdom, while 'low' wisdom is subjective - for some it may be 3, for other 8 and still others 12. Dasein
DakezDarkenblood 12-17-03, 08:07 AM	The mechanics do not do the attribute justice, but they never have. That's what roleplaying is for. If all someone perceives the worst wisdom a human can possibly possess as is a -4 to a few things, then that's the way it is. I will perceive it as the worst wisdom a human can possibly have. And reading about the incredible lack of foresight that some people have possessed (read the Darwin Awards) that's pretty bad. Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition That's from the PHB. Bottom those attributes out in a real person and watch what happens when they see something they want to get a closer look at across a busy street. "Wow... I must get a closer look at that motorbike." (low willpower) "It's across four lanes of traffic. I'm sure I can make it." (low common sense) *doesn't notice a light has just turned green a few blocks up* (low perception) "Here I go. Nothing could go wrong crossing a highway on foot during rush hour." (low intuition) Now tell me adventuring is safer than trying to cross a highway.
Lady Mia 12-17-03, 09:11 AM	People... your reading things into a low stat NOT INTENDED by the game. By refering to the PHB we see that any stat under 3 is considered unfit to adventure (in a humanoid not a pixie)... That means 3 is the lowest stat thats competant enough to handle hardships. 1-2 is considered handicapped not 3. And you are not helpless till you hit 0. Its the lowest stat for a NORMAL human a hadicapped one can go lower. There are NO game rules forcing you to play a low stat one way or another either. Its good rolepleying to select a style of play that showcases your stats. But that doesn't mean you have to play a retard if your score is 3. That 3 Wis could be a dumb blonde... or a rogue who takes foolish risks... or anything else. Its only limited by the players imagination. As far as saying to another player that if he plays a low stat character you will ditch him in a local Ilmater temple and not allow him into the party. That is very CONTROLING behavior. You are effectively forcing someone else to do what you want. Thats wrong and I hope you know it. If I saw another player do that to someone then the player who forced his opinion better never die... or I will slap it right back in his face by saying: 'We need a 1/2 Orc Bard... the only PC we recruit next after you died will be one of those... sorry if you don't make a 1/2 Orc bard you won't be joining the party'. (edited to remove a comment I shouldn't have made)
Palin the Wizard 12-17-03, 05:03 PM	Er... No. 3 is the lowest possible a human can get, just as 18 is human maximum. 1-2 is animal intelligence. And cool off the attack, Lady Mia. Calling people "racists" or "stat bigots" are NOT the way to go. It is entirely reasonable that IC you would not want a man who can't take a bath without risking to drown in your party. Unless I'm misreading him, Dasein has stated that he, as a player, doesn't mind if another player chooses a 3 in a stat, his character will simply not want such a clearly handicapped man in a party where he would need to rely on that handicapped person's skills in several life-threatening situations. I'm certain Dasein wouldn't mind associating with a character who has a stat of 3 if it wasn't obvious--which it always will be, regardless of the stat.
Dasein 12-17-03, 05:35 PM	As far as saying to another player that if he plays a low stat character you will ditch him in a local Ilmater temple and not allow him into the party. That is very CONTROLING behavior. You are effectively forcing someone else to do what you want. Thats wrong and I hope you know it. If I saw another player do that to someone then the player who forced his opinion better never die... or I will slap it right back in his face by saying: 'We need a 1/2 Orc Bard... the only PC we recruit next after you died will be one of those... sorry if you don't make a 1/2 Orc bard you won't be joining the party'. If this were an NPC we were discussing, would you be making the same argument? If the band of adventurers (PCs) were heading off to explore the Dungeon of Narrow Walkways over Pools of Lava, and Lame Jonny (an NPC), the village boy with clubbed feet (dex of 3) decided he wanted to tag along, would you let him, or would your character politely tell him that he'd get himself killed, and that he should not follow them? Also, you assume that in the party, the decision to remove a member would be unilateral. What if the rest of the party has decided they no longer want to adventure with someone. This character with low wisdom has constantly gotten the party into trouble - almost killed on a few occasions - with his poor decision and judgement. Thus, the party as a whole decides that it would be best if they part ways - is this controlling behavior, or is it the sort of normal party dynamics that will occur if people play in character, rather than rely on metagame justifications that the PCs have to stick together. What about a player who decides to play a paladin? Is that controlling behavior, as it forces the rest of the party to play non-evil characters? Do you even allow the paladin in your campaigns, or would you play in one where it is allowed, as it is potentially the mose divisive character class? Simply, not all adventuring parties will work - personalities will clash, alignments, relgiions, races, classes and yes, attributes, can all cause a party not to work. The players and DM need to work out of game to build a working party - this may mean setting rules on character alignments, races, perhaps deities, and minimum attirubtes. Players should also work together to make sure they have a good mix of classes (or perhaps one theme to the party, depending on how the campaign is to be run). As a social game, it is bad form to create a character without taking into account how that character will impact the rest of the players. Dasein
Lady Mia 12-17-03, 06:42 PM	3-18 is the stat range for a begining character... obviously a human can go higher... leveling alone can do that... so its not hard to figure out that they can be lower. The stats we are given are the acceptable range for a starting human. As far as lava pits go... Get Real... Mr heavy armor boy is going to be a bigger liability there then someone with a -4 balance modifier. By high level the poor guy who has a -4 Dex mod is not going to have all that much harder a time then his friends getting across the catwalks at deathtrap lava pit dungeon. Most likely he will have acquired magic or trained in skills to offset any real liability. And if the traps are THAT deadly the party wouldn't be seeing them till high level anyway. (baring the occational killer DM.) I assume the same conditions you assumed in your argument. And who relys on metagaming? Its you who does that Dasein. After all the Stat itself is a metagaming concept. Anyone who says 'look he has a 3 Wis, he must be retarded' IS metagaming and wrong at the same time. There is NO rule that says a low stat is retarded. I have ALWAYS advised people to work out their characters with each other before they start creating the characters in the first place. Any issues like a paladin vs evil party members should be resolved before anyone ever starts writing in stats. I have always told people to work out the reasons your adventuring together ahead of time or you will probably all go in seperate directions when the game starts. Random people on the street don't just suddenly say 'Hey! You over there!... Yes you. I feel like traveling to the Pits of Doom today feel like coming along?... Oh by the way, whats your name?' Stats are hardly an issue that divides a party... we know no one is going to have lower than a +0 total mod from their combined scores and that they will have at least one 14 stat... or the reroll rule would have kicked in. And I know of NO ONE other than you Dasein who would ban a character based on one 3 stat. In Character: Your talking about kicking a friend to the curb over a -4 to some skills... how petty is that? Thats only good rolepleying if your playing a petty character... and then I would say you are the biggest disruption of party unity. I always warn people NOT to make anti social characters. And you can candy coat it however you want with pretend compassion. But ditching a friend over a -4 is poor form.
Palin the Wizard 12-18-03, 12:51 AM	... you can't get "lower" stats later on in the game, barring permanent ability loss. A character with 3 int is the closest you can have to animal intelligence in a human. He can only barely speak coherent words. No one wants to have to put their life in the hands of a fool, no matter how good a friend he is. If you met someone, who had his hands hands crippled severly, you wouldn't give him a bow, either. It is NOT relying on metagaming knowledge. It is OBVIOUS when a character has an extremely low stat--that stat will define him, unless he has something truly extreme to off-set it. A character with 18 STR and 3 DEX would be incredibly strong... and trip over his own feet whenever he walks. No one would be afraid of him after seeing him land in the mud... unless he gets his hands on them before that, of course. As for your "Mr. Heavy Armor boy", he can REMOVE the armor and carry it on his back. A 3 DEX character can't pull his legs off and carry them on his shoulders, can he? No one would want a retard in your group, since such a character would be an incredible liability. A STR 3 or DEX 3 is better to have around, at least if they have spell-casting capabilities--that can off-set low physical stats.
Lady Mia 12-18-03, 05:38 AM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard ... you can't get "lower" stats later on in the game, barring permanent ability loss. A character with 3 int is the closest you can have to animal intelligence in a human. He can only barely speak coherent words. No one wants to have to put their life in the hands of a fool, no matter how good a friend he is. If you met someone, who had his hands hands crippled severly, you wouldn't give him a bow, either. No one would want a retard in your group, since such a character would be an incredible liability. A STR 3 or DEX 3 is better to have around, at least if they have spell-casting capabilities--that can off-set low physical stats. According to the rules: A 3 Int is described as human intelligence. A 3 Int can frequently speak 2 sometimes 3 languages at start. This is OBVIOUSLY not someone who can barely communicate. And if you add in a class or skill selection you could be a better communicator then the wizard with his massive Int. There are a number of ways to roleplay that lack of knowledge or study abilities without making a retard. For example: a low Int High Cha character may have been raised on the streets and have no education at all outside of her street smarts. She frequently and eloquently expresses herself using street slang and has an impressive array of verbal wit dispite her lack of 'big words'. In fact her cutting insults are often witty enough to go right over the head of the low Wis warrior who is frequently the target of her jokes. There! this would be a fun PC to roleplay AND she has a low Int. So what if she has fewer starting langauges and less skills then the rest of the PCs. She can be played and is NOT a liability at all. I think this whole 3 stat is retarded business is lame. It might have grown out of the part of the gamer community that thinks that a bad stat on your sheet means its doomed. When clearly its not. If your character is NOT hopeless by book rules then play it and have fun. A 3 Stat just means you probably have some rather nice stats to back it up. So use your imagination if you have it (or ask someone who does) and play a fun and chalenging PC for a change. The world does not end if you don't have all high stats. As far as not giving a low Dex person a bow??? Are you nuts? Talk about a liability. I would make sure EVERYONE had a ranged attack. After all not all monsters come at you from the ground, some attack from the air. To simply eliminate one of the groups characters from being able to fight back simply because he has a -4 to hit is crazy. It may not be his primary weapon, but the group will look pretty dumb if they keep him from fighting back against aerial or ranged attackers. Also you missed the whole point about Mr Armor vs 3 Dex man on the catwalks... the group knows its going to have to fight either on the catwalks or near them. Mr Armor might decide that falling is less of a worry than fighting without armor. Are you going to kick him out of the group because he chose one risk over another? The game is about Roleplaying and Fun! Its NOT about stat points and math. A Fighter might have a really low will save even if he doesn't have a low Wis... are you going to kick him out too? Thats as big a liability as the poor person with a low stat.
thorjarle 12-18-03, 08:17 AM	A real fire and brimstone speech! Me like!
Tharkos 12-18-03, 08:32 AM	One little piece of advie to Lady Mia: stop trying to make Dasein see the light ... he doesnt listen to reason and will only construct ever more unlikely examples where his character needs to be saved by others (the old "drag from the battlefield" nonsense). One little piece of advice for Dasein: start requiring others in your group to have 5 points in Direction Sense, Healing, Charioteering, Sailing, Navigation, Survival and other such skills they would need to keep YOU alive when you are down or to get you to safety. P.S.: In case you didnt get it ... THAT WAS SARCASM. "Dragging capacity" is about the same as a skill ... PCs can have it or dont have it so to be "fully logical" you need to require both if you say one is essential for every PC in the group.
Palin the Wizard 12-18-03, 09:04 AM	According to the rules: A 3 Int is described as human intelligence. A 3 Int can frequently speak 2 sometimes 3 languages at start. This is OBVIOUSLY not someone who can barely communicate. And if you add in a class or skill selection you could be a better communicator then the wizard with his massive Int. ... A 3 INT character speaking 3 languages at start? It's impossible. You gain languages according to two things: Race and intelligence. A race sometimes give another language (but not two). An elf starts with Common and Elven. But he also has a -4 modifier to intelligence, so he obviously cannot gain languages from intelligence alone. I don't know about you, but a 3 INT character in any of my games wouldn't be allowed to choose more than one language, which he would barely be capable of speaking. He would certainly not understand any finer words. I haven't found any evidence that the -4 modifier a 3 INT character has has any bearing on starting languages... but as a positive bonus gives a boost, a negative should certainly reduce the number of languages possible. As for him being a better communicator than a wizard... He gains 1 skill point/level, unless he is a Rogue, in which case it is 4 (if he was a human, he would gain 2 skill points/level if he was a Bard, Ranger, Druid or Barbarian, and 5 skill points/level if Rogue). But here, let's assume an Elven Rogue. Starting skill points is 16. Speak Language is a cross-class skill for every class but the Bard. That means, if he chooses to speak 1 language more than he already does, he has only 14 skill points. A rogue usually chooses Hide, Move Silently, Search, Disable Device, Forgery, Disguise, Open Lock, Pick Pocket, Listen, Spot, and more. If he wants to barely overcome his disability in Search and Disable Device, he needs to pump 2 points in Search (an Elf gets +2 bonus on Search, Spot and Listen) as well as 4 points in Disable Device (bringing both to the amazing total of 0). That leaves him... 10 skill points to put elsewhere. To use 2 of those (and maximum 4) would cripple him entirely... And a Wizard would be able to overcome it easily anyway. Int 16, Elven Wizard. He speaks Common and Elven, as well as three other languages he can choose as he wishes. Already he can speak more languages than the Rogue. Better? Bleh. Laughable.
thorjarle 12-18-03, 09:15 AM	Since I am the one that started this thread I want to say something too: I would refuse to be controlled into playing a retarded person just because I was unlucky with my rolling when I created the character. Our DM encouraged the player who did this to continue to play the character, and the player is. If the people who made the game wanted someone to be retarded when they had 3 in Wisdom, they would have given more than -4 in penalty, they would tell in the rules that when a character has 3 in a stat he/she is disabled and should be removed from game or given over to the DM cause he is to stupid/ignorant/weak/ungraceful to be played. I see that if a person gets 0 in Wis, that would be a disabled character... The guy plays this 3 Wisdom female Rogue well, and everybody is happy. What would be wrong is if the person ignores his 3 points in Wisdom and plays like she/he is having 10 or even more.
Palin the Wizard 12-18-03, 09:28 AM	That would be what he is doing, although he isn't playing her as a 10. 6 is more likely. 3 is the lowest possible for a human being, and such a character would be retarded.
thorjarle 12-18-03, 09:31 AM	Lowest possibly for human is 1
DakezDarkenblood 12-18-03, 10:23 AM	But it's not naturally occurring, as heroes are built around the 3 to 18 set. Human average is 10 in D&D. In all stats. When you get an 8 you are below average. 6 is farther below average. 3 or 4 is very far below average. It's up to the DM to decide what a three really means. Is it minimal requisites to live as a barely productive human? Is a three intelligence the guy who smiles at everyone and can be given simple commands but cannot speak himself? Is it "Me Grimlok no like funny man! Grimlok smash!" or is it something else entirely? We will never know because WOTC will never say.
The_Fan 12-18-03, 10:36 AM	I'm not going to argue the rest of this, I just would like to set my Transformers trivia straight. So, for the record, in the original series Grimlock was a tactical genius, just his language circuits were screwed up. IOW, he had actually very high intelligence and wisdom, but pathetic charisma.
Lady Mia 12-18-03, 11:00 AM	Thank you Thorjarle and Tharkos Its good to know at least some people have common sense. Palin.... Do I have to spell it out for you? Characters start with Common. They also start with a regional language in most settings. And of course a racial language if they are non human. That equals three languages by my count. Knowing a language in D&D (I hope thats the game your playing) grants full fluency and full literacy (if not a barbarian). As far as communicator goes... perhaps the example I gave was too confusing for you. So I guess I have to spell this out fully too. Communication skills are CHA based... Bluff, Diplomacy, Perform, ect. So a Rogue with a low Int & high Cha could be very eloquent with her 2 or 3 languages. As I said in the example, she may not know the 'big words' like a wizard or scientist tosses around. But she could be VERY well spoken and an amazing communicator despite that. I have NO idea where your getting this idea that a 3 stat = retard. But its wrong. Open up your rulebook if you don't believe me. You will NOT find any rule stating that a low stat person is a retard... *sigh* Someone SO bad off that they NEED help doing basic tasks is an example of someone with a zero Int.
DakezDarkenblood 12-18-03, 11:36 AM	This is why I start player characters with regional language only and require characters to have an int at least equal to their class skill points per level. But you are correct, Lady Mia. By the books someone with less intellect than an ogre (who can grunt out Giant) can speak three languages easily. I guess the ogres need remedial linguistics.
ThoughtfulOwl 12-18-03, 12:39 PM	Originally posted by Lady Mia You will NOT find any rule stating that a low stat person is a retard... *sigh* There is no rule stating the contrary, either. The fact is that the rules do not specify anywhere whether the 3-18 range (or 3-23, to include what high level characters can reach without magical aid or racial modifiers) is the full human range - from dysfunctional to worldwide paragon - or it sets the lower bound to the minimal functional level. Without official backing, which option is 'right' is up to personal, arbitrary preference. Also, I wouldn't consider the matter of languages as definitive proof; the fact itself that every PC, most NPCs and most monsters speak Common in addition to their regional/racial language is itself quite a stretch, justified only in the name of convenience. Are ALL of you sure you want to continue debating along these lines? Since each camp disagrees about the fundamental arbitrary premise, I feel this is going to become http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/FlameWar.txt
Dasein 12-18-03, 01:39 PM	First, there are a number of mental, learning and emotional disorders that could serve as physiological causes for low mental attributes. Mental retardation is not the only one, and even then, mental retardation is not an absolute standard, but rather a condition that occurs in varying degrees and involves different levels of functionality. Some people who are mentally retarded are able to hold jobs and lead relatively 'normal' lives, but just need some closer supervision. Others, with more severe retardation would require full time care, and would be totally unable to help themselves. In addition to neurocognative disorders like Autism or mental retardation, there could be a number of environmental causes like brain damage during bith or from an accident in early childhood (particularly things that would restrict airflow to the brain), early childhood diseases, malnutrition, chronic lead poisoning and a host of other potential complications. I find this talk of retardation fairly narrowminded when one considers the variety of possible causes for low mental stats. As far as not giving a low Dex person a bow??? Are you nuts? Talk about a liability. I would make sure EVERYONE had a ranged attack. After all not all monsters come at you from the ground, some attack from the air. To simply eliminate one of the groups characters from being able to fight back simply because he has a -4 to hit is crazy. It may not be his primary weapon, but the group will look pretty dumb if they keep him from fighting back against aerial or ranged attackers. Logically, then, someone who cannot use a bow would be a liability, and perhaps this party that insists everyone has a ranged attack might reconsider adventuiring with him? Would it be fair, also, for the party to place this character in situations where he is incapable of fighting back (not merely in situations where he lacks the proper tools to fight back, like a bow, but lacks even the means to use a bow)? Also, Lady Mia, since you and I seem to be in somewhat agreement on all character being able to take care of themsleves to some level, then I would assume you disagree with Tharkos here: One little piece of advice for Dasein: start requiring others in your group to have 5 points in Direction Sense, Healing, Charioteering, Sailing, Navigation, Survival and other such skills they would need to keep YOU alive when you are down or to get you to safety. P.S.: In case you didnt get it ... THAT WAS SARCASM. It seem sperfectly reasonable to me that there should be redundancy of skill sets within a party, given the high likely-hood that one or more members could become incapacitated, and thus it would be up to the remaining members to get their comrades to safety. Further, it makes sense for each character to have some basic survival skills, as it is possible that the party may beocme seperated, and characters will have to survive by themselves. Over the course of adventuring, it makes sense for all characters to pick up a few ranks in heal and wilderness survival, among others. One little piece of advie to Lady Mia: stop trying to make Dasein see the light ... Yeah, ya know, that Dasein, he's as bad as Hitler. What light is there to see? That a low attribute is not a death sentence? That it can be fun to play a disadvantaged character? I don't disagree with any of these things, but at the same time, you seem to think that all characters should be accepted in game by the rest of the party....why? Because they have a magical PC glow? It doesn't make sense for a group of advneturers to want to take on a member who has an obvious disability. he doesnt listen to reason and will only construct ever more unlikely examples where his character needs to be saved by others (the old "drag from the battlefield" nonsense). Would that I had been presented with reasonable arguments, but instead, I have seen naught but appeals to emotion, straw men and misrepresentation. I see nothing unreasonable about the 'drag from the battlefield' - it is simple, objective test that does not rely on any metagame knowledge, and that mimics a challenge an adventurer is likely to face- that of transporting an incapacitated comrade. Dasein
Lady Mia 12-18-03, 03:14 PM	Dasein... If your agreeing with me now then why bring up mental disablilities at all? I have shown that there is no reason (beyond a player wanting to roleplay his character as a hadicapped person) that a 3 stat should be considered as retarded or as any other disability. Clearly by your logic if someone chose to roleplay in this fashion it would present a difficult challenge to the group. And as you seem to advocate thats bad. As far as the Bows are concerned... I didn't say a bow specifically, there are numerous ranged attacks a character could use. And I am unaware of a class that has no ranged abilities at all. Low stats don't prevent you from using a ranged attack they just make it harder to hit. I think you completely missed the point Tharkos was trying to make. I agree that PCs should be competant. But redundant skills seems a waste of talent and roleplaying. Skill points are not all that abundant and there are a lot of skills. Its best if each person specialises in their own area. But I leave that up to the players. I don't try to tell someone what they can and can't play. I encourage them to diversify and if I am playing I try to find out what the group needs before making a character. But all the preparation in the world can do is adjust statisics slightly. No the goal of roleplaying is to have fun. And sometimes a group can manage just fine without a cleric or a rogue or anything else. The player should have final authority on what he is playing and the only reason the GM should veto a character is if that player made an anti social or disruptive PC. However it IS important to talk to each other as you develop your PCs (BEFORE making them). This gives everyone a chance to decide on the style of play they want before the game starts. If the group wants a mercenary type group who is willing to work for whoever has the biggest pockets. Then perhaps Extremely good or bad PCs are inappropraite. I would Veto a paladin as disruptive unless the group is going to be champions of the light. Why? because a more mercenary group may be willing to work with evil... a paladin will never work with evil. The same kind of things should be discussed about personality. If the group is solidly Lawfull and has a chain of command, and someone wants to play a character who resents authority and rebels against order. Then that new PC will be disruptive. Even if the same PC in a different group would work great. Another thing people should consider is WHY? Yes why do you adventure? And why with these people? This should be worked out after your characters are made but before play begins. This will give the group a REAL reason to adventure together without resorting to Daseins 'magical PC glow' =) Now that Dasein might be seeing the light *grins* Not the light of the magic PC glow but the light of my radiant smile :angel: Maybe we can address the real issue and offer constructive ideas for playing really low stats and not simply dismiss them as retarded. ____________________ For example the low Wis character mentioned earlier... Sounds like a good setup for a rogue who takes numerous foolish risks. and uses her quick wit (high Cha), lightning reflexes(high Dex) or expert training (High Int) to get out of the trouble she frequently finds herself in. A particularly ingenious GM might even use her as a spring board to begin adventures. Perhaps she was a problem child always getting into things she shouldn't be getting into. Maybe a couple of the other PCs are possible rivals for her affection. While the gruff Dwarf serves as the father figure she never had growing up... As you can see a weak stat can be a spring board for fun roleplaying if the group builds the story as a team.
Palin the Wizard 12-18-03, 03:33 PM	Originally posted by Lady Mia Someone SO bad off that they NEED help doing basic tasks is an example of someone with a zero Int. That's incorrect. Any creature that can remember, and who is capable of rational thought, has at least 1 INT. If you don't believe me, look it up. It's in the Monster Manual, under the description of ability scores. I would appreciate it if you'd keep your poorly veiled insults to yourself--they don't serve your case in any way.
tj333 12-18-03, 03:50 PM	To me the 3-18 was the playable range of stats for a starting character. Not so high that levels are near usless A wizard with 20 strength and a staff almost doesn't even need spells. While 3 is the least you can have and still function as a useful party member. So you can be useful in a party, take care of your self and do most anything that doesn't require a roll. For rollplaying the reason for the low state could be a disability but I don't see it as being one or requiring one. On the other hand if the character doesn't have something to make up for that low skill he will most cretainly be dead rather soon making the problem go away, unless you roll low on the next character. But then again I play DnD more for having fun then determing its exact elation to reality as we know it, but I am rather suspect a multiple of 42 is in there somewhere.
Tharkos 12-18-03, 10:37 PM	Originally posted by Dasein It seem sperfectly reasonable to me that there should be redundancy of skill sets within a party, given the high likely-hood that one or more members could become incapacitated, and thus it would be up to the remaining members to get their comrades to safety. Further, it makes sense for each character to have some basic survival skills, as it is possible that the party may beocme seperated, and characters will have to survive by themselves. Over the course of adventuring, it makes sense for all characters to pick up a few ranks in heal and wilderness survival, among others. By your own reasoning EVERYONE in a group needs sufficient dragging capacity and thus a certain minimum STR score. How much capacity is that btw ? Does it include the highly armored fighters body or just the lightweight halfling one ? For the same reason you MUST INSIST upon everyone in having all of the survival skills or you admit your own reasoning has flaws. Choose .... Originally posted by Dasein Yeah, ya know, that Dasein, he's as bad as Hitler. What light is there to see? That a low attribute is not a death sentence? That it can be fun to play a disadvantaged character? I don't disagree with any of these things, but at the same time, you seem to think that all characters should be accepted in game by the rest of the party....why? Because they have a magical PC glow? It doesn't make sense for a group of advneturers to want to take on a member who has an obvious disability. What is it with people that they always have to use Hitler's name when things get tough ? Sounds a bit "off topic". The simple reason why I will always disagree with you about the low stats is that they arent always apparent when you first meet. So I would strongly advise you to stop metagaming and instead listen only to the descriptions and roleplaying which your buddies give of their characters instead of looking on their character sheets. Even though you might notice someone has a low STR you DONT know its a 3 ... it might even be a 5 or 6 (and thus "barely tolerable"). For INT and WIS this would be much harder to determine because you cant just have someone "lift weights" and then check the PHB on page 161. Originally posted by Dasein Would that I had been presented with reasonable arguments, but instead, I have seen naught but appeals to emotion, straw men and misrepresentation. I see nothing unreasonable about the 'drag from the battlefield' - it is simple, objective test that does not rely on any metagame knowledge, and that mimics a challenge an adventurer is likely to face- that of transporting an incapacitated comrade. Dasein There have been plenty of reasonable arguments but your own example of 'drag from the battlefield' doesnt even work out: - an average human male with some armor (breastplate and heavy shield plus weapons) can easily have a total weight of 200 lbs (that includes the pretty ridiculous weight of 120 lbs for human male in the PHB), - to be able to drag 200 lbs. you need a STR score of 7+ WITHOUT CARRYING ANY GEAR YOURSELF and this is where the problem starts ... this is without having "unfavorable conditions" (=> half dragging capacity), - average gear weight for the dragging character is approximately 40 lbs (mix between armored and non-armored gear) and if you subtract that from the maximum load value to get the "dragging capacity" you need STR 11+ to make it work. People will disagree with me over the exact figures, but I chose average values and you can find reasons to go higher or lower in any case ... which serves as just another example why 'drag from the battlefield' is a bad "requirement" because roleplaying characters are just very different. You cant have a way out of every dangerous situation and if someone is unlucky enough to fall unconscious in a bad situation he might have to be left behind. But thats the life and risk of an adventurer, so its pretty useless to start and "require" certain abilites of others. If you dont want to adventure with someone else based upon his/her actions that is fine, but throwing someone out because he/she "isnt good/strong/wise/.... enough" is just elitism, no matter what you say Dasein.
CyberCat 12-19-03, 12:15 AM	Very low stats should have a major effect on the pc. The party should be able to work together and each player should be able to enjoy playing the game. As a DM would never force a player to play a very low stated pc. A pc with a 3 in Wis, Int, or Cha is going to be a special needs pc. If the other players don't mind and the low stated pc's player wanted to play it I wouldn't stop them. On the other hand I think its a cop out to have a 3 in int for example and rp it like its no big deal. "Oh it just means a -4 on some rolls, but otherwise its all good" I don't agree with that type of rp'ing. Look at the point buy system. You start with 8's in everything that's as low as you can go before racial mods. If 3's were no big deal then the system would start you out at 3 and give you 57 points to spend.
Tharkos 12-20-03, 03:05 AM	Originally posted by CyberCat Very low stats should have a major effect on the pc. The party should be able to work together and each player should be able to enjoy playing the game. As a DM would never force a player to play a very low stated pc. I doubt this post topic was intended to become a "what does a stat of 3 mean" discussion, but I think there already is a major effect on the player character. Even a stat of 7 has a strong effect on the character ... either by giving him low carrying capacity, low number of skill points, less chance to resist certain spells, ... It is still playable if you enjoy the challenge. Originally posted by CyberCat A pc with a 3 in Wis, Int, or Cha is going to be a special needs pc. I would disagree with any attempt equalling a stat of 3 with a handicapped person. Certain creatures have STR 3 just because they are very small ... its not a handicap. Animals can function with INT 1 and arent handicapped. You just need to adjust to rather "basic emotions" if you have a character with a very low mental stat or other very reduced parts of the adventurers life (equipment carried, number of conversations in town, movement, ...). Someone defined "humor" as "looking at life from a totally different point of view while looking into a mirror". Something similar is true for a character with a low stat and that is why playing such a character will open up new possibilities because you are forced to think different. Originally posted by CyberCat If the other players don't mind and the low stated pc's player wanted to play it I wouldn't stop them. On the other hand I think its a cop out to have a 3 in int for example and rp it like its no big deal. "Oh it just means a -4 on some rolls, but otherwise its all good" I don't agree with that type of rp'ing. Look at the point buy system. You start with 8's in everything that's as low as you can go before racial mods. If 3's were no big deal then the system would start you out at 3 and give you 57 points to spend. Point buy systems are the easy way around the necessity to play a character with a low stat, but not everyone wants to have such a "lack of surprise". If you are "stuck with a low stat" you should try to roleplay it accordingly, but since not everyone can roleplay 18+ CHA, INT or WIS you dont have to be that particular in the other direction.
DakezDarkenblood 12-20-03, 12:12 PM	Most animals with a 1 strength weigh less than a kilogram and not upwards of 60 (120 pounds or so). They are not 'handicapped' by their attribute for it is sufficient to propel them around and even allow them to run very fast and leap fair distances and move anything they might have cause to move in their little lives. It would not be so for a full grown man with a 1 strength who is apparantly able to move himself around but certainly wouldn't be a very fast or skilled hunter, nor a particularly gifted gatherer. He couldn't defend himself or his mate adequetely, nor could he escape pursuit readily. A three strength would be marginally better, yes. But a human's physical traits are secondary to our mental ones. It's not fair to compare a three strength to a three intelligence, as a human with three strength but a sharp mind can use his mind to compensate for his frailty. A human with a three intelligence but a high strength would make a DECENT animal at best. He's marginally smarter than a predator. The high intelligence character would be able to think ahead and prepare plans for danger. The high strength character would have to hope he's tough enough to defeat or flee from all challenges. There might be an evolutionary reason why humans evolved intellect at the cost of physical power... apparantly natural selection agrees. I miss the old days where it was suggested (perhaps in Dragon) that IQ = int x10. It let players know for sure where they stood with a 3 int (30 IQ = dumber than a trained chimp (IQ 45 or so), but smarter than a trained dog (IQ 25 or so). Forest Gump had a 70 in the movie. 30 to 180 was human range, with 90 to 110 being average. Those numbers are still correct, but now the system has changed and stats above 18 are common. I still use the x10 system, though. If Steven Hawkings can boast something like a 320 why shouldn't a tweaked out super-genius character with a 32 intelligence? Yes, it is as wildly inaccurate as the concept of IQ... but it's simple.
Eldren 12-20-03, 01:01 PM	People are bringing up some valid concerns about a character with a Wisdom of 3, but I think there are also some mistakes being made here in what Wisdom really is (not in real life, but in the game). For the greatest part, Wisdom boils down to perception and applied knowledge. Someone with a Wisdom of 3 is literally as dense as a brick house with no rooms. Remember what Lucy Van Pelt always called Charlie Brown? "Blockhead". While that wasn't necessarily true of ol' Chuck, that's what a character with a Wisdom of 3 is: a blockhead. It doesn't mean they're autistic, even mildly. It does mean that they're often unaware of causality, as someone else has mentioned. They'd have peed themselves listening to the Merovingian's speech in "Matrix: Reloaded", not because of the big words (if they had a reasonably decent Intelligence score, they'd fully understand those words and what they meant in context), but because the concept of causality, being so completely alien to them, would have been beyond their wildest imagining. "Actions have consequences? You know, I've just never quite picked up on that..." Good example of someone with a Wisdom of 3: Lloyd from "Dumb & Dumber" (the first one, not that sickening sequel). He wasn't a dumb guy, in all honesty; he was, literally, blissfully unaware of his surroundings. His perceptions were skewed differently from most other people. He saw Lauren Holly's character Mary, and immediately she was the focus of his entire world, based on nothing more than the fact that she was a sweet, attractive redhead. Scott Adams once said in a Dilbert collection that he liked to keep his characters just on the edge of awareness of their situation, because he thought that provided the most comedy. "Big Dumb Stubborn Guy" from three Dilbert strips wasn't actually dumb, he was just obscenely stubborn and had a really low Wisdom, because he couldn't grasp that his intent on remaining stubborn was keeping him from succeeding at a job he likely had the skills to perform. Ratbert and the Pointy-Haired Boss aren't really dumb (well, all right, the PHB is actually a bit dumber than Ratbert), they're just unaware of the consequences of their actions because they're concerned about living in the "now". That's what a character with a Wisdom of 3 does: They live totally and utterly in the now. They have no concept of cause and effect. They do something because it "seemed like a good idea at the time". They wouldn't use a sword on a stone door to open it, because if their Intelligence is reasonably high, they can recognize that blunt objects work better than sharp objects on resilient surfaces. They might, however, try to use a sword to pry the door open, figuring that if it works with a crowbar, an improvised crowbar (i.e., a sword) would do the job just as efficiently. They don't understand that you don't look at the king's daughter's cleavage and whistle like a wolf, then ask, "How did those get to be so big?" It's not because they don't understand that breasts grow as the woman ages out of pubescence, but that they don't understand that asking such a question is unrepentantly rude and completely outside the norms of accepted social behavior. Dean, the pig from the strip "Liberty Meadows"? He's got a Wisdom of around 5. He's reasonably smart, but he doesn't grasp the concept that being a beer-swilling, chain-smoking male chauvanist isn't the way to attract the attention (favorable attention, anyway) of a woman. He goes to the bar, and continues to make inappropriate comments that result in severe bodily harm coming to him. It doesn't mean you're crippled, and it doesn't mean you're autistic. However, in order to remain playable with more normative characters, it does limit you to certain stereotypes. The person who's always getting the party into trouble because they shoot their mouth off at the wrong time to the wrong people (kinda like wandering south central L.A. and telling a gang-banger that you just had your way with his mother, and were wondering if he were your son) isn't going to last long. The party is eventually going to reach the point where they have to weigh the benefits of his abilities (i.e., his class and level) vs. the situations he puts the party in which often drain resources, time, and sometimes blood (paying to bail him out of jail, concocting plans to keep him from talking to the diplomat while the party is in town trying to conduct business, or just hauling his ass out of the fire when he mouths off to the already-grumpy troll idly swinging a greataxe by one hand). More often than not, the party is going to realize that life is much easier (and a lot safer and less expensive) if they simply terminate relations with such an individual. Good-aligned members of such a party are likely to try to pawn the individual off into the care of someone who's inclined to take care of people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, as this person would be. They don't require constant supervision; they can feed and dress themselves, although in the modern world they'd probably do things like subsist on a diet of McDonalds and AM/PM (7-Eleven, for those who don't live in an area with an AM/PM) and wear speedos when they weigh 300 pounds Such a character can still be an adventurer, however, particularly if the rest of their ability scores are at least average. It just means that they don't get to be the one who scouts for the party in an area where they're likely to be ambushed. They can still scout and search for traps, and they can use their "Disarm Device" ability perfectly well. They just can't do anything remotely based on the Wisdom score. They can even be a skilled negotiator, if they have a high Charisma and have ranks in Diplomacy, but in casual conversation they're probably best to keep away from the newly-single princess who's looking really fast for someone to woo her and marry her. They're likely to comment on how her bodice makes her chest look three sizes larger, and what things they'd like to do to said chest, rather than compliment her on the beauty of her blue eyes and mention how they resemble two fine sapphires twinkling in the skies of Celestia. In other words, they can do fine in areas where they have to focus their attention on things they're good at, but otherwise they need to be kept to the rear of the party. They can likely fight just fine, they can cast spells just fine if they're an arcane caster, and they can be a perfectly good Rogue. Obviously they aren't going to make a good Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Cleric or Druid, but nothing's stopping them from becoming a Fighter, Barbarian, Bard, Rogue, Wizard or Sorceror of true renown. Look at Mike Tyson. The man has one of the most cataclysmically low Wisdom scores of any celebrity I know of (well, all right, Michael Jackson does seem to keep getting himself in trouble...). No doubt about it, though: Iron Mike has a Strength of at least 20 and is intelligent enough to know applying that Strength in a profession such as boxing (which is a lot more complicated than some think; if you go in there expecting to literally just hit someone until they stop moving, you're going to get KO'd in the first round; it does take some strategy and knowledge of anatomy, not to mention knowing how to pace yourself and have a high Constitution score) is a sensible move. But he has a low Wisdom. He was horribly careless with his un-Godly sums of cash, he doesn't know how to control his temper even in the ring , and doesn't understand that given public knowledge of his temper and lack of patience tattooing himself with tiger stripes isn't going to make people feel safe around him. Someone with a Wisdom of 3 is often going to do comedic things, with the occasional catastrophic blunder. They're playable, but they're certainly not optimal. But if the character otherwise meets the Player's Handbook's description of a playable character (i.e., all of their stat bonuses and penalties net a total bonus of at least +1), then there should be nothing stopping you from playing the character. But if you're really concerned about it, tell your Dungeon Master that you want to give this a try, but if you find that you just aren't able to have fun with the character, or find that the rest of the party is constantly looking for legitimate ways to end said character's life, that you want to change characters. A score of 3 sucks in anything, even Charisma (in 3rd Edition, at least; the stat meant nothing in the previous two editions, other than meeting the class requirements for Paladin or Bard), but it isn't automatically unplayable. But it is definitely a playing challenge better left in the hands of experienced players.
Dr. Jubal Harshaw 12-21-03, 08:08 AM	If you want a good example of a ridiculously low wisdom character (low intelligence as well, but that's another matter), then check out fighter in this webcomic: http://www.nuklearpower.com He likes shiny swords! And he can invent new weapons, like the sword-chuck! Its like a nunchuck (sp?), but with sword blades for handles!
thorjarle 12-21-03, 05:06 PM	Elder: Great post! Well, I support that 100%, cause it is that way I have interpreted 3 in wis, and that is the way the fellow playing the Rogue are playing her. I am going to mail him that reply. Thanks :) I rest my case...
Addi83 12-21-03, 09:17 PM	Remember that the baseline for surviable humanoid mental stats is 3, anything below that is a disease or being to incapable to have a chance a t survival. 3, however is barely enough, so I disagree with the people who say that this is totally unplayable and is descriptive of someone with a mental illness (though it could be). It is, in the simplest term, the bare minimum.
Addi83 12-21-03, 09:17 PM	doublepost