This thread about INT and WIS got me thinking a little about the disparate gap between what is considered a "high" stat, and what is considered a "low" stat. This is especially true when it comes to representing intelligence, wisdom and charisma.

Let's assume the "average" attribute score is 10-11. With a score of 10 or 11, there are no bonuses or penalties -- the person is considered to have average ability.

Now, with an attribute score of 8, we see a penalty of -1. With an attribute score of 13, we see a bonus of +1. In a balanced "normal"/gaussian distribution, scores of 8-13 would be within a standard deviation, and would be representative of the general "normal" population.

Why is it, then, that when someone has even a mild "8" attribute, we expect people to RP exaggerated handicaps? It's not as if we treat someone with a "13" attribute as equally special...?

As an example, it seems as if people expect someone with a "8" intelligence to barely be able to speak in whole sentences, or a person with a "8" charisma to be chronically farting and picking their nose in public, when, on the other end of the spectrum, we don't really treat someone as noticeably intellectual or charismatic until they reach 15 or so.

Compare that to someone with a "8" strength, who can still carry reasonable loads and isn't terribly much less capable of a fighter than someone with a "13" strength. In day-to-day applications, the difference between a 8 and 13 STR would go largely unnoticed. Most everyone you pass on the street is in this range, and you'd hardly be thinking any of them looked particularly "weak" or "strong".

Granted, our characters are expected to be "above" the mean average when it comes to overall cumulative stats, but that shouldn't impact general public perception of ability.

Thoughts?

The difference between 8 and 13 is vast. In terms of intelligence, you cannot speak properly with 8 intelligence, which is why people are expected to RP it that way. It's a rule. You require at least 9 to form full sentences.

The difference between 8 strength and 13 is enormous. If someone is RPing 8 Strength as being a tad weak, they're misrepresenting it.

People can't see your character sheet, however. Characters arent treated as being Charismatic once they break the 14 mark. They're treated as being Charismatic when they RP that way. It's the same with any stat.

I like your theory and I'm willing to fund further research.

The difference between 8 and 13 is vast. In terms of intelligence, you cannot speak properly with 8 intelligence, which is why people are expected to RP it that way. It's a rule. You require at least 9 to form full sentences.

I don't believe that is either a canon or EfU rule. 8 is dumb and slow, but speaking simple sentences is well within the bounds for 8 intelligence.

EfU might be different, but I am 99% positive that it requires 9 int to properly speak common. Simple sentences arent what I was talking about.

NwN Creation Screen WARNING: An intelligence lower than 9 means that your character is unable to speak properly

House Rules are supreme, though.

I think 10-11 is meant to represent the average abilities that most people have. 8-13 is stretching it. As for intelligence, 9 is what is required to speak "properly" according to the rules. I assume properly means having a decent understanding of the basic grammar and pronunciation of your native language. Someone with 8 intelligence could still form sentences and express basic concepts but would do so in a crude way. That is not to say that someone with higher intelligence might not speak crudely as well, language is a learned tool, so you speak the way people around you speak, but someone with low INT would have trouble expressing complex concepts and maybe more importantly, having them understood by others. For comparison, some races with INT in the 8-9 range on average are gnolls, troglodytes and centaurs. All of them are capable of intelligent thought in one way or another, but probably not likely to go writing epic poetry.

As for other abilities, I think there is supposed to be a large gap between 8 and 13. For example a badger falls in the 8-9 range for strength, while a pony is 12-13. I haven't been around too many badgers or ponies but I'm pretty sure a pony is a lot stronger than a badger.

JackOfSwords As an example, it seems as if people expect someone with a "8" intelligence to barely be able to speak in whole sentences...

DeputyCool In terms of intelligence, you cannot speak properly with 8 intelligence, which is why people are expected to RP it that way. It's a rule. You require at least 9 to form full sentences.

outcrowd1 As for intelligence, 9 is what is required to speak "properly" according to the rules.

Specifically for Int is it wrong to assume that multiplying the ability score by 10 translates roughly into the PCs IQ (i.e., 18 Int != 180 IQ), which many do; I saw a table once that gave a very good approximation of a PCs IQ based on the Int score, but I don't recall where I found it.

With that said, having 8 Int (or Wis or Cha) means you should give serious thought to how your PC associates with other PCs. There's nothing wrong with an 8 Int PC speaking like Bogroll from Erfworld, but there's nothing wrong with speaking like Lord Stanley either.

...or a person with a "8" charisma to be chronically farting and picking their nose in public, when, on the other end of the spectrum, we don't really treat someone as noticeably intellectual or charismatic until they reach 15 or so.

In day-to-day applications, the difference between a 8 and 13 STR would go largely unnoticed. Most everyone you pass on the street is in this range, and you'd hardly be thinking any of them looked particularly "weak" or "strong".

A very handy chart I'm nicking from somewhere else:

Strength

6-7: An 8 year old human child. 8-9: A small dog, a badger or deer. 10-11: Your average human 12-13: A large dog, or a human who routinely works heavy manual labor 14-15: A gnoll, a dire (small) animal 16-17: A bodybuilding human, a shark, a leopard 18-19: A minotaur. An extremeist bodybuilding human. 20-21: An ogre, a super-human.

Dexterity

6-7: A person with bad arthritis 8-9: An 8 year old human child 10-11: Your average human 12-13: A football player. A bugbear. 14-15: A skilled acrobat. A displacer beast. 16-17: An octopus. A master locksmith. 18-19: A freaky asian contortionist. 20-21: Gumby. An angel.

Constitution

6-7: A frail old person. 8-9: A swarm of locusts. A cow. 10-11: Your average human 12-13: A rust monster. Someone who eat's healthy and takes vitamins. 14-15: A horse or troglydite. 16-17: A tiger, an assassin vine. 18-19: Bears, elephants 20-21: Dinosaurs

Intelligence

6-7: A troll. A man with down syndrome. (7 and below is a speech problem) 8-9: A gnoll, a man who is just a touch slow but gets by. (small words and careful meaning, but not slurred or stupid) 10-11: Your average human. 12-13: Your average well-educated human. A lamia. A cloud giant. 14-15: A wraith. A will-o-wisp. A walking thesaurus. 16-17: A succubus, a beholder. 18-19: A mind flayer. 20-21: A titan. A human genious.

Wisdom

6-7: A human teenager. A githyanki. 8-9: A troll. 10-11: Your average human 12-13: Hyena, an Owlbear. 14-15: A sagely human, a philosopher, a psychiatrist, an owl. 16-17: A Lillend, an androsphynx. 18-19: A buddhist monk. 20-21: A unicorn, a storm giant.

Charisma

6-7: A badger, bear, troll. 8-9: Gnoll, an ugly person. 10-11: Your Average Human 12-13: A Treant, a roper, a used car salesman. 14-15: A medusa, a storm giant, a priest. 16-17: An ogre mage, a pixie, a harpy, someone who is a professional speaker. 18-19: Nixies. Mr Suave. Fabio. Dick Clark. 20-21: Astral Deva.

Putting teenagers, animals, philosophers and buddhist monks on the same linearly ascending scale of an ability score (and precisely in that order!!) makes my eyes bleed. Really. But, I guess it's the way things have to be in D&D...

(It does make me laugh to think that Wis 6-7 would represent a teenager, though. Heh. And similarly, it makes me laugh to think that githyanki would be on the mental level of teenagers.)

Snoteye

I want this out. Right now. Nowhere in either the DMG or the PHB is this issue addressed. It is a houserule BioWare implemented to add depth to the original campaigns, nothing more -- 8 Int does not mean you cannot speak properly.

I want this out. Right now.

You're not reading very carefully. Its addressed in a number of DnD books. Low intelligence means your character speaks slowly, misuses words, has trouble pronouncing words properly. He communicates with the same effectiveness and intellect as a troll.

I got that just by turning to page 9 and 10 of the PHB. If I really thought it was worth it, I'd search for the exact spot in one of the canon rule books where it says characters with 8 INT or less have trouble speaking properly in so many words, but I suppose being unable to speak quickly, use the right words, or even pronounce them generally comes to mean you "cannot speak properly".

It doesn't mean you're character is "Me Grog." However, go watch Forrest Gump for an example of a 7 or 8 INT character talking. Its very distinctive and obvious they're slower than other people.

One ideal I use and may tell other players regarding minimized stats is that, for example, if you have an 8 intelligence human, it is physically impossible for your grown and developed human to naturally be any stupider. The "bottom" of each stat for each race represents the -lowest- number, and thusly, the lowest level of ability an adventurer can have compared to other adventurers -- aside from having that particular attribute forcefully drained or reduced due to a outside influence.

The different between 8 and 13 for any ability score is vast and noticeable.

Oroborous However, go watch Forrest Gump for an example of a 7 or 8 INT character talking. Its very distinctive and obvious they're slower than other people.

Re-reading the sidebar on page 10 in the PHB which if I'm not mistaken, is the one you quoted, I think I realize where we disagree. While an ability score between 12 and 13 is average, it is average for heroic player characters. Therefore, even though the gap between 8 and 13 is big I don't think 8 is low for a stat, and therefore I don't think you have to speak like a troll because you have 8 Int (like you would in the NWN OC). I suppose I wasn't overly clear originally, but this was what I was aiming at.

Had a longer post, it didn't save. So, the short and sweet:

People in my opinion will not ever play low (6-7 or below) stats in Int, Wis, or Cha for the following reasons:

1) It will impact the characters progression in loot, XP, or gold.

2) The player has no life examples to draw from to be able to play the low score.

I don't like seeing scores at 6, and 7 gets shady for me, just because rarely will people actually play the score and get into trouble. No one wants their character to die, loose out on questing, etc. Actually playing really low scores can be entertaining, for a short time. Then, as you realize you really are excluded from groups becuase you make stupid decisions that get people killed and or act your proper 6 Cha score, you will drop the character for something more socially acceptable.

I will dock XP for minimized stats that aren't RP'd. If it's on your character sheet, that -is- your character and it should be RP'd appropriately. 7 Wis 8 Int character who act stupid but then make good and proper choices when death is involved, loot, or xp don't fly with me. 6 Cha (or below, I have seen 4cha in game on more than one occasion) should mean your character has no friends, is not liked, can not lead/should not try to lead, is ostracized, despised, and or hated. You are a nuissance just for standing around, and people do not like to be around you. 6 cha is not just a grumpy dwarf on a quest, and only insulting after every loot and GP has been passed out. 6 cha is not a lovable lug of a half orc who is -really- ugly. I will let it be said that I personally do not think I could ever play a 6cha properly with a character I inteded to keep. Short term yeah, but I like to see my characters progress.

Short of it, 6 and below is bunk. It won't get played properly. don't do it. I loose respect for people who min/max and don't invite them to do my leet quests.

Beggar,

If you and any of the other DMs are using this as your unofficial policy, then it should be clearly stated somewhere. Most pure newbs that come to EfU or any other RP server won't know that, and it's unfair that they are starting off with a "label" secretly designated by the DMs that will handicap their character.

The same holds true for min/max builds like dwarf tanks. As this is an RP server, and a very good one, there should be a clear heads-up low scores should be RPed well - and possibly what the consequences will be.

Conversely, I think people that RP a low stat should get XP for it when DMs observe someone doing a good job. IMO, any player that does a good job of RPing should get DM XP once in a while even if they aren't on a DM quest.

Just a suggestion. It seems "surviving extremely challenging DM quest" merits DM XP, but "good RP in the streets of Sanctuary" does not receive it as often. Course mebbe my RP didn't deserve it, so if this does happen frequently then I retract my suggestion.

gwydion

Most pure newbs that come to EfU or any other RP server won't know that, and it's unfair that they are starting off with a "label" secretly designated by the DMs that will handicap their character.

Correct, which is why I talk to them as I see them in game. I don't mind a min/max, if RP'd all the way out. It's min maxing and then blatantly "forgetting" about your low social stats that gets me. Even then, your only on my crap list if you tell me to shove off, get real, etc. All of which have happened. The people I have respect for are the people to can discuss it rationally with me and move ot change their RP. Note that I do not instantly see a min/max build and write off a player.

I'm pretty sure it should be clear when you sign into any roleplay server that you're expected to roleplay your stats.

I also know almost ALL my DM experience comes to me in the streets of Sanctuary; far more than I ever get adventuring. I think because the DMs realize if I adventured more I'd die faster.

Oro,

With all due respect, it's not obvious to most people - especially newbs - that you have to consider the effects of an 8 WIS as a half-orc fighter.

You are clearly a phenomenal RPer, but from my personal experiences getting DM XP for character interaction is a rare thing for the majority of characters. I'm not complaining, because I know many vets are exceptional at nearly all aspects of playing EfU well and deserve it. Or maybe I just didn't warrant such rewards and I can accept that, but that's not why I rang.

Spreading a carrot here and there more often to the merely good and even mediocre players will reinforce that precept and gradually improve the server. Again I retract my statement if this actually happens frequently - I usually don't send OOC Tells saying "Did you get XP for that?", so I'm not sure how frequent it DOES happen.

IOW, the ubervets like yourself who completely rock at character creation, plot development, and working with the DM staff to get stuff done might not have a realisitic view of what the vast majority of relative newbs and even average players see.

Guess it's a matter of perspective. I'm not sure why some of my students can't predict the products of an acid/base neutralization reaction and balance it after we spend so much time working at it, but then I remember that I've been doing it for a while and it just takes some longer to "get it."

All in all, just a minor suggestion I thought worth consideration. It's awesome to see that Beggar and presumably the other DMs do indeed work with the newbs on such issues to help their RPing evolve as they go. It was intended as more of a question of what DMs do with these things than a complaint or accusation.

I'm fairly certain that the Bioware rule was invented because they wanted to script alternate conversation for characters with 8 int or below. The line in the character generation screen was thus stuck there to warn players that if they chose 8 int or below they would be saying to Lady Aribeth, "Me want help you." However, it is certainly not a requirement in EfU that 8 int or below have to speak in broken sentences and I would be astonished if it's written anywhere in the canon literature that with 8 int you can't form grammatically correct sentences.

Yes, 8 int means you're dumb. And dumb characters will often struggle with language. But honestly I don't find "me want smash" to be as interesting role-play from a stupid character as some other alternatives. The best stupid characters I can think of, the ones that absolutely nailed what it means to be dumb, did not speak in broken english. They just were slow and said silly, silly things.

And to add one more thing, I'm fairly certain that 8 int is not the lowest limit of human behavior, but rather just the lowest limit for a heroic adventurer PC in NWN. Severely mentally handicapped humans would probably be more along the lines of 4-6 int.

As for the tangent about DM RP rewards - we do the best we can, but we can't go everywhere at once. I think sometimes players get stuck in the "grass is greener" mentality. But I seem to recall a several hour quest that Helkesst ran for Erik that began with him just walking the streets of Sanctuary. Further discussion on this tangent should be directed to this thread.

I have roleplayed a character with 8 intelligence that merely spoke using an incredible amount of malapropisms, he could still talk and -thought- he was intelligent, but what he said was in the wrong context, or made the sentence mean something completely different, with obvious terrible results.

I don't always play my stats because I tend to play characters that are smarter than me. Int 17+, which should equal ~170 or so IQ, for example. Yeah I'm clever but not a genius :P

I read through the majority of these posts but I will admit I skipped a couple, and I apologize in advance if this was touched on already.

I would like to see higher stats played out better, it seems that the low-end gets more attention because it's abuse is more obvious (i agree that they should be properly played aswell, of course). It seems alot of people can get their stats to at least 10, to avoid being hassled for low stats, and still produce at least one high score. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I just feel that as a player I should pick up on this stuff while roleplaying with you. 18 Charisma is not just looking really good- and I don't think a simple sentence in your description like "has the face of an angel" can cover that stat entirely. This is the same for people playing very high int and wis characters aswell. I point out these three because they are (in my opinion) the least focussed on when it comes to RP.

What it basically comes down to, as it always does, is playing your stats properly. This is an RP server, and I think alot of players lose their original concepts once they get to the character creation screen, because they can blatantly see the negative effects of their choices.

The only reason I bring all of this up is because the original post mentioned the difference between a +1 and -1. You'll get hassled if you don't play that -1 properly, I just don't think it should be so much different if you aren't playing the +4 correctly.

Most everyone playing on this server will fall into the "average" range in real life. It is more difficult to play Albert Einstein than Forrest Gump, especially if you're a Forrest Gump in real life.

This is why when creating a new character, unless I explicitly have a good reason I always ensure that all my stats are at a minimum of 10. I don't think people who can't properly role-play their higher stats should be punished, but instead rewarded when they are successful.

MrSelfDestruct The only reason I bring all of this up is because the original post mentioned the difference between a +1 and -1. You'll get hassled if you don't play that -1 properly, I just don't think it should be so much different if you aren't playing the +4 correctly.

I'll openly admit to liking people playing their faults more-so than their strength. I don't mind it when a 22 dex halfing "falls" or a 20 int wizard "not getting the puzzle," but I do get concerned when a 6 charisma halforc "makes tons of new friends" or a 6 con elf "runs a thousand miles."

They're just gross generalizations, but being more interested in faults than strengths tends to hold true, and are often more interesting to me, at least. I would be more inclined to make a special piece of +2 charisma loot for a "properly played" 6 charisma recluse than I would a +2 strength loot for a "properly played" 22 strength giant-wrestler, even if they were being played equally well.

When I talk about playing your stats I don't mean only when faced with troubles pertaining directly to them. I mean for general and all roleplay- not just for mechanics or problem solving. I think it would just be better, and a simple way to justify your being given extra spellslots or whatever- if more people at least made an attempt to roleplay their high abilities. If you don't particuarly see your wizard as being 18+int smart, then don't make the int that high. This isn't a big complaint or anything, just a suggestion, feel free to correct me if you think im wrong.

I tend to want to play what ever stats I give a character. I get more out of make sure they are fitting then most of my builds can take. I have always seen a 14 in a stat is on the higher end of average. They arnt going to break a record for their strength, or their mental ingenuity, but they are certainly capable of useing that statistic with able proficiency. 18's are rare among most human populations. It represents something much greater then average, and allot of people arn't capable of playing those up to another's standards.

My point being, I as a player try to avoid concepts that require a stat that I don't possess. This is not always fair, I and really don't think anyone that wants to play these concepts should be told not to.

Basically I agree with Meldread. People should get rewarded for doing well, over punished for not living up to another persons standards. Its a game and I would hate it for someone to feel stupid if they got yelled at for wanting to play their wizard concept. Mind you abuses of this: the 6 cha dwarf throwing parties and walking the streets tellling all his name and opinions, Is not for me to deal with. I might assume their cha is higher then it might be, but thats for the administration talk to him/her if they have an issue. (I don't ask for another persons stats, So I assume them based on their Rp)

This is just my opinion, and of course these things vary from person to person. Just like to throw in that this is a game, and people should try to help each other enjoy. Thats why I keep coming back to this community.

Well, despite my attempts to clarify otherwise, it seems that my comments came off as complaining or negative.

But I seem to recall a several hour quest that Helkesst ran for Erik that began with him just walking the streets of Sanctuary.

As do I - quite vividly and fondly. It was pure awesome, and easily the top RP experience I've had on EFU. I'm sure I thanked Helkesst profusely because it was way above and beyond what I expect from my RP experience - especially on a free server.

And it's obvious these types of things can only happen so often as DM attention can only be in so many places at once. I can't even imagine how hard it is to try to be a good DM, and I've tried to sincerely thank DMs at every opportunity.

But as it appears that I'm being chastened, I'll tuck my tail and take my ball home.

Linelle Int 17+, which should equal ~170 or so IQ, for example.

170 IQ would be very, very, very rare... rarer than the amount of INT 17 PCs the server has... I'm not going to try and estimate a proper IQ amount for INT (though I will say that there can be different types of INT, and so no stable IQ chart could be made...), though I will say that I believe that number (170) to be a severe overestimation of the character's mental ability (especially when you consider that your character might get INT bonuses as he/she levels, and will get +2,+4.+6 (etc...) bonuses as she ages).

By that logic (17 INT = 170 IQ), it would mean that a human of slightly advanced mental capacity (12) would slowly rise into the realm of genius as he aged (recieving a possible +4 as he becomes venerable, thus having a 16 INT and an IQ of 160!?).

That is a massive jump of 40 IQ points simply for hitting the 80 year marker... and all in the PHB aging rules.

So I'm going to have to disagree.

=/

It's not like the Int increase for aging makes much sense anyways, no matter how exactly you want to interpret the score in real life terms, so that reasoning is pointless.

It's not like the Int increase for aging makes much sense anyways

That depends. It would make sense if the INT score in D&D represented not only IQ but also accumulation of knowledge.

Aging doesn't by itself correlate with the accumulation of theoretical knowledge. It does correlate with the accumulation of practical knowledge, though, and that's what is represented (among other things) by Wisdom in D&D. Old people are typically associated with wisdom precisely because they've seen and experienced much during their life, but that's not the kind of knowledge that is going to help you solve logico-mathematical puzzles or answer questions concerning history, biology or any other field of knowledge unless you've had some kind of education. For people like us, in real life, such education is taken for granted even though it's not so self-evident. It's a separate factor.

On the contrary, an Int decrease for aging would be far more plausible because of Alzheimer's and similar diseases that come with age. How many 80 year olds do you remember that were as quick of mind as your average college student, never mind even quicker?

No matter how you explain gaining stats as you age, all I was saying was that the 17 INT = 170 IQ logic was flawed.

There's no "logic" in it, it's just an assumption that's somewhat useful in helping to think about Intelligence in D&D in real life terms. I don't really feel strongly either way, I just pointed out that there's no reason to believe you based on the argument you gave. So far, I'm not aware of any argument that would convincingly point out some deciding flaw in the Int/IQ conversion.

Anthee There's no "logic" in it.

Exactly.

Anthee I'm not aware of any argument that would convincingly point out some deciding flaw in the Int/IQ conversion.

The 'flaw' would be that if you followed that idea (the 'convenient' theory that you can multiply by ten to find IQ), you'd wind up with astronomically incorrect results (ie - a human of average intellect suddenly becoming a genius simply through aging).

I’ve been reading through this thread with a bit of interest because I’ve always felt that when people, both players & DM”S start to focus on Min/Max stats, they have lost sight of the whole picture. BTW, I’m not defending power-gamers here in anyway, shape or form.

Charisma is one of the hardest stats to role play properly I think. I’ve tried my best with my Dwarf [6 cha] but I have to say playing how I wanted to play him both IG & on the player forums, using foul language etc, actually ended up upsetting some people OOC [ an edit: maybe it worked after all? who knows?]. It seemed that some folks can’t tell the difference between IC & OOC. As a side note, I’m not complaining here just stating things as I see it. Also, he grumbled and whinged a lot and that appeared to piss off people as well. In addition, I often tried emoting how ugly he was when he took off his helm. Yet, this dwarf has 14 Int and 16 Wis so as I saw it, he knows how far he can push his luck with situations & people. He would know how to use the right words if necessary because he is smart & savvy enough to.

I think the problem with low stats is that they need to be seen in context with the rest of the characters stats, look at the whole picture, not just one facet. Just because someone is pig ugly, has bad habits doesn’t mean they can’t interact with other people. And arbitarily penalising someone who has made the choice to play such a character is just plain unfair.

For an IRL example, look at someone like say Ron Jeremy! He’s one of the ugly bastards I’ve ever seen, engages in VERY questionable acts [pornstar] yet he can have a conversation with people because he’s pretty smart and knows how to interact with folks. I believe the same goes for PC’s in a game, they can have a low score IF the other scores/stats are balanced out like a decent intelligence or wisdom or whatever.

I really didn't want to post to this thread. I've fought the urge every time I've read new posts.

That being said, I currently play an 8 Cha char. He quite literally has one friend. He has made one sending. He has traveled on some very important quests and gone virtually unnoticed. My char has been on several DM quests, without any complaints from either side. He is not hated, nor outcast, but I think well played.

My point is there is no perfect formula as to how to play your char's attributes, but it is fairly obvious when you are not playing them at all. I don't "try" to piss people off, but at the same time I don't seek their approval.

All that said, just do your HONEST best and everyone (including and especially the DMs) won't notice a disparity. If you make the effort, it is almost always noticed (or at the very least, not punished). Also, the DMs are pretty cool people who CAN be shown another point of view if offered in a calm and civil way.

So much for not commenting... I think this may be the longest post I have ever written!

Just because someone is pig ugly, has bad habits doesn’t mean they can’t interact with other people. And arbitarily penalising someone who has made the choice to play such a character is just plain unfair.

A low cha of this level means you are not socially acceptable, should not have friends due to them not wanting to interact with you, you can't lead, shouldn't lead. At 6 cha, people do not want to be around you. People would actively seek to move away from you.

You are smart enough and wise enough to realize that you have a problem, and darn it, can't over come it. Unless you put points at levels 4 and 8 into Cha to signify you overcomming your complete social ineptitude, dude.

And arbitarily penalising someone who has made the choice to play such a character is just plain unfair.

We don't mind if you choose to play such a character. Don't mind at all, IF you play the stat where it needs to be. If you are not playing your stats properly low enough in order to allow yourself to interact with other people to quest, progress, etc...then that is not playing your character as it has been created.

If you want to fully RP a 6 cha, then fine. Do it and do it all the time. I only penalize people 1) after I have talked to them about a need to improve due to their not playing their stats and 2) when they blow me off and keep playing their 4-6 cha anything as just "really ugly" or "grumpy".

Your example focuses on uglyness as a measure of Cha also, which we have stated time and time again is not. You can be ugly and have a 20 cha. Look up Gruumsh in the diety book, check out his Cha.

I agree with Beggar.

Someone asked me what Fen's charisma was, and I told them "14"

They replied, "But he has half his face ripped off! He looks like hamburger!"

And I said, "Yes, that is true. But he is a nice guy, and he has a gentle way about him. He can be persuasive and gets along with just about everyone. Just becauce the ugly truck backed over him does not mean that he is undesirable as a friend. I just means that the children ask him to wear his helm all the time. The children still talk to him and like being around him. So do most of the adults."

Remember, Intimadation is related to Charisma as well. It is your force of personality that gets things done. Your appearance does help, but I always like to say "Just because the woman is a super model, doesn't cover the fact that she is a whinging stuck up, snot nosed brat who makes every moment you spend with her a complete chore."

*insert some misc. comment about ex-girlfriends*

I have another question about playing abilities: how much should be based on stats, and how much based on skills?

If I have a 14 charisma, how persuasive can I roleplay my character, before I should probably put points into persuade? Is the high charisma enough, or should I add stats to persuade if I want to rp my character as persuasive?

Can I be a good liar with a high charisma, but no skill points in bluff?

Likewise with things like high intelligence and lore? Can I know a lot with no skill points in lore but an intelligence score of 16?

Can a merchant rp knowing a lot about pricing items with a high intelligence and wisdom, but no points in appraise?

I currently sit on the fence on this topic, so would be interested to hear DM and others thoughts.

I've always thought that you'd just look at the -total- bonus you have in the end.

Like don't just look at Charisma OR Pursuade to find how pursuasive a guy is, but add the bonus together.

So a guy with a 16 CHA but no actual ranks in Pursuade would perform as good as a guy with 3 ranks in Pursuade but 10 CHA.

It seems really obvious, yeah, but heck, thought I'd try and respond to your thought, GFWD. ^^

I think all 3 of those contribute to each other, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma. Charisma to get things done, intelligence to make the plan, and wisdom to find the flaws. Simple as that.

Nikblade2005 I've always thought that you'd just look at the -total- bonus you have in the end.

Like don't just look at Charisma OR Pursuade to find how pursuasive a guy is, but add the bonus together.

So a guy with a 16 CHA but no actual ranks in Pursuade would perform as good as a guy with 3 ranks in Pursuade but 10 CHA.

It seems really obvious, yeah, but heck, thought I'd try and respond to your thought, GFWD. ^^

but it isnt. a guy with 16 CHA will be more persuasive than a guy with 3 of persuade.

An order of importance that Strife gave: CHA, skill focus, skill points.

As it shows a much more direct Investment in those social skills than just putting skills points in them.

Mort a guy with 16 CHA will be more persuasive than a guy with 3 of persuade.

o.o They'd be equally pursuasive.

So you're telling me, that a guy with 17 CHA would be more pursuasive than a guy with 4 skill ranks in pursuade? Even though the guy with the ranks would, in game terms, have a higher chance of succeeding in any given pursuade check?

What? No.

A man with 16 charisma is naturally more persuasive than the man with merely three ranks in Persuade. The latter man's skill is learned oratory, the other's is not.

Well then what do you say to the latter part of my statement?

Nikblade2005 So you're telling me, that a guy with 17 CHA would be more pursuasive than a guy with 4 skill ranks in pursuade? Even though the guy with the ranks would, in game terms, have a higher chance of succeeding in any given pursuade check?

I wasn't addressing you.

In regards to the last few posts, I have noticed that the DMs ask you to roll skill checks to use a skill. With that as a reference, I would say that whatever your TOTAL skill is, that is how you RP it. Yes, high Cha makes you more persuasive, but your total persuade skill is what really counts. If an 8 Cha char has 8 ranks in persuade (7 total skill), he is still far more persuasive than a 16 Cha with no ranks (3 total skill). The DMs have always said that assigning skill points shows a specific effort to improve that ability.

I give an example I know well. My char has 1 rank in both Open Lock and Disarm Trap. He is, however, very dexterous and very intelligent. He therefore is automatically fairly well-skilled in both, but not well-practiced. At the same time, he has traveled with chars who have put more ranks in both skills, but can't quite do as well as he does for lack of natural ability.

This is a little "apples and oranges," but I think it answers the questions immediately above.

*waits, tongue panting, for Howland to sweep in and correct him*

The Beggar

Your example focuses on uglyness as a measure of Cha also, which we have stated time and time again is not. You can be ugly and have a 20 cha. Look up Gruumsh in the diety book, check out his Cha.

It was an example to illustate the point and was to explain why a PC would have a low cha score: ugly & basically foul mouthed. A combination of factors which appears you missed it seems. :?

Also, your example of Gruumsh who would have a high score of Cha in regards to Orcs and others of his ilk but human, elves etc would find his appearance and personality repulsive/terrifying and thus his score to them would be extremely low. Sure, he's intimidating and has a forceful personality but hardly anyone that isn't an orc or demon is going to worship/adore him when they see him.

I haven't got the rule book to refer to right now but what I can remember is that having a low score of Cha actually made a creature/pc possibily more appealing [for want of a better term?] to others of that ilk. Most monsterous races as have a very low cha scores, goblins, kobolds, orcs etc.

I completely agree charisma is more than just looks, it's a combination of factors such as charm, savoir fare, sagacity and perhaps even a bit of guile when it comes to dealing with people? But also intelligence and wisdom would help there as I said before.

In the old 1st ed book "Unearthed Arcana", Mr Gary Gygax came up with a appearance stat so to differenciate looks from personality. It's a pity that when WoTC bought D&D they didn't include that great stat which solved a few of the problems in regards to Cha.

IMHO & in all honesty, I believe that Charisma is a broken stat and that appearance and personality should have been kept as seperate stats. It tries to cover too many facets of a PC. And I think a lot of folks just don't quite get it right.

If I was in charge of writing the 4th Ed rules, I think I'd be very tempted to ditch Charisma altogether and try to find a better way of expressing a PC's personality rather than one all encompassing score that is trying to be all things that cover force of will, personality, looks, ability to influence others but not achieving it very well. The skills system like persuade, bluff, intimidate is a much better way to build a personality I think rather than just one generic score.

To have a stat with a value of 8 using a 3d6 rolling method which creates the curve which d20 was designed to have. Roughly 26% of all characters would have an 8 or lower. Below average is just that. More than 26% of the RL population can speak coherent sentences. That bottom portion of the percentile might have miserable vocabularies, but it's safe to assume you won't have to go all too far out of your way with an 8.

In comparison, the same can be said of a 13. You have the same odds of rolling a 13+ as an 8-. Roughly 26% So assume a character with a 13 in a skill can do things that only 26% of the population can accomplish. If this might help you, perhaps so would this.

10-/11+ 50% (108/216) 9-/12+ 37.5% (81/216) 8-/13+ 25.926% (56/216) 7-/14+ 16.204% (35/216) 6-/15+ 9.259% (20/216) 5-/16+ 4.63% (10/216) 4-/17+ 1.852% (4/216) 3-/18+ 0.463% (1/216)

Those are the odds of a 3d6 determined stat to fit into the listed criteria, and could likewise be considered the percentage of the population which fill that criteria. For instance, roughly 4.631% of the population has a good grasp of calculus. So it could be possible that a 16 int character might. Perhaps a few 15s as well, but not likely any 14s or lower.

Hope this method helps.

And by the way, those numbers would in fact show that the int/IQ conversion is -very- badly flawed...

I know the top 2 percent of the populations great minds (qualifying them for Mensa) Starts somewhere in the high 130s or around a 14 int. An IQ of 140 shouldn't be seen until around a 16 or better. Possibly 15. Very few people in recorded history (only a heaped handful and not the roughly 34 million who could beat the 0.4% odds) have ever had an IQ of 180+. Many who ever did died of cerebral complications. So lets call these the superhumans with the 23+ int scores, after gaining 20 levels of "idiot savant".

Thought I'd pop back in for my personal views on CHA.

It's about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. And it's not limited to the "admiration" respect. It's about "courteously yielding" to someone's influence. In the case of Gruumsh, it's not about whether elves, too, worship him, it's about recognizing the power he holds over his followers and "can therefore wield against me."

Let's take a modern day example... GW Bush. I think the guy is a complete moron, he's unsympathetic and patronizing, he's hardly what anyone would call cute, I disagree with almost every word that steps out of his mouth... but there's no getting around that he holds tremendous power and influence. For certain people, he represents their ideals so much that they want him to lead. Perhaps even more important is how confident he is, himself, in those ideals and his confidence when representing them.

I don't have to like the guy or think he's adorable to recognize that. I don't even have to believe he deserves the power and influence. I just have to recognize he has it.

The worst part about trying to play CHA is the fact that it's relative. If GW Bush weren't president, and I met him in a one-time private setting for a small chat, I'd likely walk away thinking he had a "7" CHA. But someone from an extremist right-wing religious group might walk away thinking he were the 2nd coming of God. I can't properly account for his CHA until I see the influence he has over others, not just me.

To properly account for CHA, you have to factor time, context and audience. Not an easy thing. It's not like strength, where you can simply say "can lift 200 lbs with one arm."

Well, that's my 2 cents, anyway.

I think you've raised some very valid points here Jack regarding CHA. Interesting to read your views.

Oh, that appearence stat I mentioned earlier was call Comeliness, as a measure of how good looking a PC could be. Someone like Eilistraee would have a comeliness score in the high 20's because she's an absolute hawtie! :P And of course, that would effect how people would react to her upon initial contact. Having a low score would have negetive impact as well.

So physical appearance was/is an important part on how people judge one another even before they've opened their mouths to speak and express their personality.

Charisma is simple.

It measures how well your character is at provoking the desired feelings in those he interacts with.

Fear, respect, hostility, love, whatever.

Obviously, looking suave will help do these things, but it's overly simplistic to equate Charisma with how physically attractive the character is. It's fine to play ugly characters with high Charisma.

As for the matter of skills, it's also easy. The higher your modified rank, the better you are.

I guess I may not have been clear in my original post. I understand that the more skill points you have in something the better you are at it. The question I am trying to ponder, and better understand, is:

How good can I roleplay my character's ability to persuade or bluff without actually taking skill points in the skill?

Is there a point where the roleplay of a character requires skill points in a skill and not just a high stat by itself?

It depends on your skill modifier. If you have no ranks and a shitty Charisma, you're going to be terrible at lying and persuading. If you have plenty of Charisma and no skill points invested, you'll be okay at it. If you have plenty of Charisma and lots of skill points invested, you'll be excellent at it.

And this is why I always tend to play high Charisma characters with lots of skill points invested in Bluff, Intimidate and/or Persuade. Being able to lie convincingly, inspire others and bend them to your will is arguably more important for your character's longevity than a few more HP or an extra bit of AB!

My pet hate is seeing low charisma characters doing these things.

Though, characters with low Charisma can do these things with ranks invested in the appropriate skills.

Yes, of course!

It measures how well your character is at provoking the desired feelings in those he interacts with.

A wonderful way to sum it up into one sentence. :D But there are limits to whom you can provoke desired feelings in... for example, Toebiter the Troll may never be able to provoke any feelings beyond hatred in Elvis the Elf. But Toebiter may still be able to convince Elvis to do what he wants because their mutual friends Grunge, Freida and Pogo are on Toebiter's side.

So, I might suggest an alternate phrasing:

It measures how well you character is at provoking strong feelings in others in order to gain beneficial influence.

It doesn't necessarily need to be beneficial.

Howland

The difference between 8 and 13 is vast. In terms of intelligence, you cannot speak properly with 8 intelligence, which is why people are expected to RP it that way. It's a rule. You require at least 9 to form full sentences.

I don't believe that is either a canon or EfU rule. 8 is dumb and slow, but speaking simple sentences is well within the bounds for 8 intelligence.

I have always likened ability scores to the concept of IQ - a figure that (regardless of the issues in its assessment) is supposed to give you an index figure of an individual's intelligence relative to others of similar age (derived by dividing Mental Age by Chronological Age) and multiplying by 100 - thus if you were average for your age group, you would score 100.

Having worked with people of both confirmed above average and under average intelligence as a teacher, I can say that Howland is right on here - young people with low IQ (say 80-85) at first seem perfectly normal - they don't look retarded or childlike. Once you engage them in critical thinking activities though, or watch their behaviors, their low IQ comes out.

One student for instance, whom I've had for two years now, although she can carry on a conversation, can go into no depth about anything, cannot solve relatively simple problems requiring higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis, or evaluation), and in terms of her social development she at 16 reads the same book series as my 10 year-old daughter and draws ponies in her spare time with the same level of facility as my daughter. She is not classified as retarded (the student, not my daughter) so she gets no special education attention - her IQ is low enough to affect her work and socialization but not so low to get her services - she's in effect fallen through the cracks.

With regard to playing lower states in EFU, we sometimes need to stretch things a bit. Although my alternate character, for instance, is technically an 8, I tend to play him at about a 7 - he DOES have issues in sentence structure and pronoun usage, makes childlike gestures, and so forth. Why? Because I cannot get his score to actually BE lower than an 8 in game.

As to the comment about not noticing the differences between an 8 and a 13, just because they are within one SD of one another, I have to disagree there as well. All the SD tells you is that 66 percent of the population falls within that range. There will still be noticeable variance within that range, especially at the high versus low end. Arguably, the difference between say a 10 and 11 is meaningless though. My student's Iq is a prime example. Although within the first SD, she is clearly NOT operating at the level of someone with 10+ Intelligence Attribute!

Word to your mother.

All the SD tells you is that 66 percent of the population falls within that range. There will still be noticeable variance within that range

In a "normal distribution model", it's 68.27%. 8)

I agree with you completely. I would expect lots of variation. But I meant to address the general perception of normality. One standard deviation in a normal distribution model, by definition, is meant to address the concept of "normal". It by no means precludes variation and diversity.

I liked the analogy Vendayan used of calculus. It paints a clear picture of how noticable something is when you get far enough away from the "norm". By comparison, something such as basic addition should easily fall within a normal distribution model as within one standard deviation. Would you agree that at least 68.27% of the population can perform basic addition? Yet, I've actually seen someone expect another character with an "8" INT of not being able to count to 20.

As you mentioned, a person with a low IQ (say 80-85) would at first seem perfectly normal. Only through testing or observation over time will it begin to become clear their abilities are on the low side -- certainly not at first glance.

It's quite reasonable to assume you could meet 2 people on the street, one with an 80 IQ and another with a 130 IQ, and not know which was which simply by asking them for directions on how to get to the bus stop. In fact, I've two friends that would fall at those extremes, and I can tell you from experience that people don't generally describe Gary (who has Downs syndrome) as "stupid", or Benny as "smart". (Ironically, it's just the opposite, though Gary couldn't complete public schooling and Benny has a Master's degree in Engineering.)

Let's take strength as an example, again. If I walk down the street, it's doubtful anyone would look at me and think "she's weak". I don't stoop over, or drag my feet, or look exhausted. In fact, based on appearance, they might actually believe me to be on the stronger side, since I'm taller than most women and have an athletic build. But it's likely my strength would be considered an "8" or "9" in NWN. By the same token, someone else with my appearance might easily have a "12" or "13" strength.

Yes, there will be variance. But the variance in the standard deviation is an "acceptable" variance -- one that shouldn't require severely exaggerated emotes just to drive the point home that their INT is an "8".

My intention when I started this thread was to point out that an 8 stat is usually expected to be exaggerated as horrifically bad, whereas a 13 stat is generally portrayed realistically (as good, but no huge deal.)

Now, all of that said, I don't frown on someone with a character who has an "8" INT speaking sentences such as "Me go smash tiny humies with big stick thing." What I frown on is that anyone would think they should HAVE to, just due to an 8 INT.

I think a score of "8" should be allowed to be just as subtle as a score of "13" is allowed to be, when it comes to RP. But it IS important to make sure that your character is consistently suffering appropriate penalties... that is, not coming up with brilliant ideas (8 INT) or smooth-talking their way out of a bind (8 CHA) just because you, as a player, have that ability.

I think JackofSwords has described how I feel on the subject damn near perfectly. =)

Nerds, all of you!

[quote="Talwyn"]

The Beggar

Also, your example of Gruumsh who would have a high score of Cha in regards to Orcs and others of his ilk but human, elves etc would find his appearance and personality repulsive/terrifying and thus his score to them would be extremely low. Sure, he's intimidating and has a forceful personality but hardly anyone that isn't an orc or demon is going to worship/adore him when they see him.

Charisma doesn't have to be about others worshiping or adoring you. Intimidate is modified by CHA. Gruumsh's high CHA doesn't just apply to orcs, orcs will likely be scared into worshiping him, but humans, elves and others would just be scared, which is an effect of charisma as well.

outcrowd1 Charisma doesn't have to be about others worshiping or adoring you. Intimidate is modified by CHA. Gruumsh's high CHA doesn't just apply to orcs, orcs will likely be scared into worshiping him, but humans, elves and others would just be scared, which is an effect of charisma as well.

Agreed, he wouldn't use his Charisma to get you to adore him, he'd use his Charisma to fricken horrify you. Remember that dragons' fearful presence ability is charisma, allowing them to simply get up on their hind legs and roar to get everyone to run away, not adore them. ; )

Bane is probably the best example.

9lives Bane is probably the best example.

I'm not familiar with that (well, besides weapons with bane). Is it a spell or ability that uses charisma (that's what I'm assuming ^^)?

He's referring to The Black Hand, Bane.

(The deity)

Bane Serve no one but Bane. Fear him always and make others fear him even more than you do. The Black Hand always strikes down those who stand against it in the end. Defy Bane and die - or in death find loyalty to him, for he shall compel it. Submit to the word of Bane as uttered by his ranking clergy, since true power can only be gained through service to him. Spread the dark fear of Bane. It is the doom of those who do not follow him to let power slip through their hands. Those who cross the Black Hand meet their dooms earlier and more harshly than those who worship other deities.

Ah, cool.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a general RP rule that you require 9 INT to speak properly/common?

Whereas you certainly don't need 9 STR to lift a sword, or your legs for all that matters. I agree that's nothing you notice on first glance, but when you interact with an 8 INT guy, if even briefly, it should become obvious within a split moment. It's comparing two completely unaccociated things.

I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but it seems to me to be the old discussion of How bad is my 8-stats?!

If I remember correctly the general consensus of old is that while 8-stats are not overly terrible in pen-and-paper D&D, it is quite terrible in NwN. This springs from the fact that, as a human, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a stat that is lower than 8. Eight then, is the ultimate (human) low in NwN-terms and as such should be roleplayed as an extreme stat.

This does make the span between 8 (terrible) and 10 (average) quite large, but think about it, shouldn't it be possibe to want a really stupid, weak, sickly, repulsive or klutzy character?

If 8 is only mildly below average, then these interesting characters can not be created, stat-wise.

Howland said in this very thread that an Int. under 9 does not mean you cannot speak well. That rule was just an NWN thing for the OC.

Howland I'm fairly certain that the Bioware rule was invented because they wanted to script alternate conversation for characters with 8 int or below. The line in the character generation screen was thus stuck there to warn players that if they chose 8 int or below they would be saying to Lady Aribeth, "Me want help you." However, it is certainly not a requirement in EfU that 8 int or below have to speak in broken sentences and I would be astonished if it's written anywhere in the canon literature that with 8 int you can't form grammatically correct sentences.

Yes, 8 int means you're dumb. And dumb characters will often struggle with language. But honestly I don't find "me want smash" to be as interesting role-play from a stupid character as some other alternatives. The best stupid characters I can think of, the ones that absolutely nailed what it means to be dumb, did not speak in broken english. They just were slow and said silly, silly things.

And to add one more thing, I'm fairly certain that 8 int is not the lowest limit of human behavior, but rather just the lowest limit for a heroic adventurer PC in NWN. Severely mentally handicapped humans would probably be more along the lines of 4-6 int.

Speaking well, and managing to speak, are two separate things. If you have less than 9 INT, you cannot speak well.

If you have an 8 in any stat, or below that, expect to portray it as the weakness it is. Cautious rogues who make well thought out plans with 8 Wisdom doesn't fly with me. Similarly, 8 INT characters speaking well and solving puzzles is not on. Moreover, 8 CHA characters making legions of friends and allies and being consummate liars or leaders is equally as wrong.

The most eminent reason why I hate seeing this (besides the fact it's against the rules) is that it detrimentally affects the people who do actually have high mental/personal stats and want to make a difference with them. If everyone is a leader, then why bother putting points into Charisma?

Howland

The difference between 8 and 13 is vast. In terms of intelligence, you cannot speak properly with 8 intelligence, which is why people are expected to RP it that way. It's a rule. You require at least 9 to form full sentences.

I don't believe that is either a canon or EfU rule. 8 is dumb and slow, but speaking simple sentences is well within the bounds for 8 intelligence.

If speaking simple sentences is well within the bounds of 8 intelligence, I'd say that means that an 8 INT character (with exceptions, of course) could potentially (and commonly) speak well.

"He had brown hair... I think he ran that way." That's a simple sentence. If I heard someone say that to me, and was then questioned by someone, I'd say that the guy had spoken well enough. Though if that's -not- how things are done here, then I'll be quiet and submit.

i would like to chime in with soem old school pen and paper philosophy here, and then bow back out of this conversation.

As it was known in the d&d community 'back in the day' as im sure some of us remember, the concpet of the stats in general were not allways to be taken literally. For example, every time you took HP damage didnt mean your were physically hit or cut. It meant your ability to survive the fight had been worn down by some degree, until finally you lost enough ground or energy or ability to absorb with your armor, and finally fell. That is why fighters had more HP than magic users (old term), regardless of ability stats.

Player characters were not to be considered the normal folk walking the streets. PC's were to be heroes, and thus the stat rolling system reflected this. No DM wants to sitthere while players roll up village idiots who die on the first encounter and wait for everyone to reroll. It was thought that the game should start with players who were up to the heroic story ahead of them.

With a point distribution system, such as in NWN, if you want to make someone truly unremarkable, i would recommmend not spending all of your points. However again we have a disadvantage here because all PCs in NWN were intended to be heroes also. Thus there are minumums on stats that reflect this. if you waned a truly dumb or physically weak character, you would need to get much lower than 8 to get that effect.

Perhaps a nice DM could give a player some permamnent stat damage for RP reasons. It happened in pen and paper all the time, often it meant the end of the career for the adventurer, but here in EfU it could be roleplayed nicely.

just my 2 coins, for what its worth.