Yes, it's my second language @Belgarathmth! I didn't had a strong base for grammar in English as in fact i learn english playing RPGs (this's not a joke, before google exist in SNES time i always opened an dictionary and each banter in those games took minutes of my time to translate them in the first times, with time the expense of time with the dictionary was reduced), started it in my youth by playing Final Fantasy III (SNES), Chrono Trigger (SNES), Secret of Mana (SNES)... among others, later i developed a bit better the language by interacting in online games. Baldur's Gate helped me a lot to develop a bit further my knowledge and this forum also improved my dialect.
@Ashiel, so people with 3 in stats are normal and common in existence? Good luck thinking this way if that pleases you dude.
Actually yes because that's just the way that it is. It has nothing to do with my perception but with mathematics. It's very common. In both 2E and 3E, NPCs were generated with 3d6 (and PCs back in pre-2E). Statistically one in every 216 people will have a 3 Intelligence specifically. A much higher number of people will have a 3 in one of their statistics (because they have a 1/216 chance of having a 3 or 18 in each of 6 different statistics), so even if not Intelligence specifically it's not anything to write home about when you encounter someone with a 3 in a statistic.
A character with a 3 Intelligence is still capable of speaking one or more languages and practice a profession. Due to the soft nature of mental ability scores and what they mean, a low Intelligence can represent everything from outright stupidity to lack of motivation to apply themselves to lack of education. All it does is modify a few statistics in very specific ways and by the very rules has 0% impact on your character from a roleplaying perspective (I quoted the actual 2E PHB that said that the number on your Intelligence has little bearing on your actual character's mind).
"However, the true capabilities of a mind lie not in numbers--I.Q., Intelligence score, or whatever. Many intelligent, even brilliant, people in the real world fail to apply their minds creatively and usefully, thus falling far below their own potential. Don't rely too heavily on your character's Intelligence score; you must provide your character with the creativity and energy he supposedly possesses!"
But all that aside, I'm not the guy who's acting haughty and telling other people that the way that they play is wrong. I'm just the guy quoting the facts and letting others make up their minds from that.
An person with 3 in intelligence isn't even considered human by intelligent standarts, they're labeled as creatures with humanlike intelligence in D&D rules (can be confirmed in the WotC site itself).
Statistics are an... lemme be soft with the words... not smart way to evaluate things literally.
Intelligence has nothing to do with knowledge just to state, that's wisdom portifolio.
The temperature status of a person with the foots in the freezer and the head on furnace is? Normal by statistics standards.
An person with 3 in intelligence isn't even considered human by intelligent standarts, they're labeled as creatures with humanlike intelligence in D&D rules (can be confirmed in the WotC site itself).
Cite your reference? Because Int 3+ is greater than animal Intelligence in pretty much every edition of D&D I've seen. It's the minimum human Intelligence that you can have without some sort of disability or defect, and in 3E it was elaborated that 3+ INT is required for things like speaking, possessing an alignment, and so forth.
Statistics are an... lemme be soft with the words... not smart way to evaluate things literally.
Intelligence has nothing to do with knowledge just to state, that's wisdom portifolio.
The temperature status of a person with the foots in the freezer and the head on furnace is? Normal by statistics standards.
Because making stuff up and ignoring statistical data is "smart"? Yeah... Also Intelligence actually does equate heavily to knowledge. In fact, it was the statistic that defines Wizards, and governs Knowledge (the skill) in latter editions. In 2E, Int is noted as a statistical measurement of memory, reasoning, and learning ability outside the written word. It notes a character with a 3 Int as being semi-Intelligent. Semi is defined as "often" and "Intelligent" as:
1. having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals: an intelligent student. 2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment: an intelligent reply. 3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence: intelligent beings in outer space.
Combined with the rulebook literally saying that true potential of the mind is not measured by Intelligence and that you should play as you will, it's pretty much the nail in the coffin on any sort of idea that 3 Int humans are somehow gravely handicapped individuals ready to fling and eat poo. The manuals do not agree with you, the game does not agree with you, and statistics that quantify the game we are discussing do not agree with you.
So please forgive me for not taking your word as some sort of holy sacrament. When the rule books over several editions disagree with you, the math disagrees with you, and the best you can do is tell me to ignore statistics and insist that having a 10+ somehow makes you a good role-player? Haha, at least it's entertaining to watch.
On a side note, it's my personal preference that characters do have some flaws. The average ability scores for characters in the world is between 9-12 with 10-11 being the most statistically likely (at about 12.5% each versus the 11.6% for 9 and 12). I like it when characters aren't Mary Sue superhumans who have no statistics less than the average but plenty above. See, from where I'm sitting, that grinds my gears a little bit from a roleplaying perspective. I like that Brufus the Berserker might not be very knowledgeable, or that Edvard the Magician is prone to putting his foot in his mouth like so much Sheldon. The difference between you and I is that I'm not going to come on these boards (or any other boards, or even declare to a PC for a game I'm GMing tabletop for) that they are roleplaying wrong because they don't adhere to my narrow preferences and opinions, or attempt to pass those opinions off as facts without some data to support it.
But i believe you gonna want a more trusty source, so i found this link for an digital copy of player 3.5E handbook (page 9). Just take a look at the comments on intelligence attribute there, about the definition of 3 intelligence specifically.
So, here goes a list from the player handbook itself for examples related to intelligence:
"Average Intelligence Scores Average Average Example Race or Creature Kind Intelligence Modifier Zombie, golem, ochre jelly — — Carrion crawler, purple worm, camel 1 /–5 Tiger, hydra, dog, horse 2 /–4 Gray render, tendriculos, rast 3 /–4 Otyugh, griffon, displacer beast 4–5 /–3 Troll, hell hound, ogre, yrthak 6–7 /–2 Troglodyte, centaur, gnoll 8–9 /–1 Human, bugbear, wight, night hag 10–11 /+0 Dragon turtle, cloud giant, lamia 12–13 /+1 Invisible stalker, wraith, will-o’-wisp 14–15 /+2 Beholder, succubus, trumpet archon 16–17 /+3 Mind flayer, death slaad, nightwing 18–19 /+4 Kraken, titan, nightcrawler 20–21 /+5 Great wyrm gold dragon 32–33 /+11"
You base your entire argument in statistics, now when i ponder your arguments you "state" that i'm against statistics. So, before saying that i made up something, have the trouble of AT LEAST research the subject to avoid be forced to swallow your words. That's trully shameful, specially if no one offended you before.
My affirmative is that statistics can't be the sole base of an argument and you changed my words for "statistics had to be discharged".
By the own player handbook:
"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects how many spells they can cast, how hard their spells are to resist, and how powerful their spells can be. It’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills."
"Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. An “absentminded professor” has low Wisdom and high Intelligence. A simpleton (low Intelligence) might still have great insight (high Wisdom). Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score"
So intelligence define how well a person can absorb knowledge and process it, while wisdom is more an issue of awareness, both define knowledge so i give that my statement for wisdom to represent knowledge is not true, while this doesn't give true to your own statements.
You probally only read my last post about the issue to speak of liking flaws, when ppl want to be stupid and speak with offense intent only, that's the way they act, so your behavior didn't escape the ordinary. I make defense of stats that respect roleplay issues, so i also play with flawed characters evidently.
If you think an BG saga, where ppl reach lvl 40 should be played with an average 9 stats in all atributes... well, the best luck with that.
Unfortunally imbecility isn't a disease, but rather a choice of keep eyes closed, i can offer clarify but not an panacea for your problem mr. @Ashiel, among all i have said, at least i hope you get clarified enough to not flame without reason people that peacefully argue in the threads of this forum.
The temperature status of a person with the foots in the freezer and the head on furnace is? Normal by statistics standards.
Ah, statistics jokes. Major pet peeve alert.
To be perfectly frank, this is complete and utter nonsense. Someone with their feet in the freezer and their head in a furnace is not statistically normal. Their mean temperature is statistically normal, but their temperature's standard deviation is well outside the normal range. Since no statistician would tell you that they can characterize a distribution by its mean alone, it makes absolutely no sense to claim that such a temperature distribution is "normal by statistics standards."
@kamuizin I don't think @Ashiel is guilty of flaming. He simply made a much more coherent argument than what I've managed to do up to now with better sources. In response you've said that he suffers from imbecility.
I get a bit pissed off with the old tactic of manipulate and extend to another sense the words of another, i say "statistics can't be the sole argument" someone declare that i state "statistics are wrong". Also for someone that state that so many things do not agree with me, not a single source have been quoted, strange indeed !
@kamuizin I don't think @Ashiel is guilty of flaming. He simply made a much more coherent argument than what I've managed to do up to now with better sources. In response you've said that he suffers from imbecility.
Thank you Wowo. It's also funny that I'm accused of flaming but Kamuizin is the one who immediately resorted to insults. :P
I get a bit pissed off with the old tactic of manipulate and extend to another sense the words of another, i say "statistics can't be the sole argument" someone declare that i state "statistics are wrong". Also for someone that state that so many things do not agree with me, not a single source have been quoted, strange indeed !
Oh boy! You moved directly to 3E! I'm so amazingly ecstatic right now, because I have specifically avoided using 3E to detail the argument since Baldur's Gate is based on 2E and I didn't want to muddy the waters (which is why I included direct quotes and explanations from the 2E Player's Handbookin addition to (since you like saying my argument only consisted of) statistical breakdown of the % likelihood of running across normal people in your game with 3 (or 18) in a given statistic. So much for not quoting sources eh? (Psst, I quoted the 2E player's handbook at length, twice, and noted it. Try practicing your reading comprehension.)
But you see, if we jump directly to 3E, you've expanded my range of ammunition to truly mind-boggling proportions. See, in the 3.x Player's Handbook, it gives a quick example of average intelligence based on race. See, where the human average of Intelligence is 10-11, the average intelligence of a Rast is 3 Int, which is also the average Int as a Gray Render. But at no point does it say that having X in an ability score makes you "as this creature in mannerisms or function". Creatures often have nuances that vary wildly. For example, Rasts are described as being cunning in combat, and notes their tactical awareness but lists no languages. Gray renders likewise apparently have no language. A human with a 3 Intelligence however can speak 3-5 different languages at 1st level just using their racial skill points and still be able to function well in society (that many languages could make you a translator).
What it actually says is: "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. The ability is important for Wizards because it affects how many spells they can cast, how hard their spells are to resist, and how powerful their spells can be. It's also important to any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills."
It then goes on to describe what Intelligence actually affects within the game world. And then finishes up with.
"A creature of humanlike intelligence has scores of at least 3."
Oh snap, did...did the manual just say that the range of non-damaged human intelligence is 3+!? Oh yes, yes it did. And all that Intelligence actually governs for your character - even in 3.x and Pathfinder - is the modifiers to existing skills. How you choose to roleplay those modifiers is up to you and has always been up to you. Having an ability score of X in anything has never meant anything beyond what it actually says that it means.
A commoner from 3E with a 3 Intelligence (again, roughly 1/216 commoners) will have 8 skill points at 1st level. Said human could invest them as follows: Profession (Anything) 1-4 ranks, Speak Language (Pick one) 2 ranks, 2 ranks left to spend to round out his activities. We could say he was a farmer, or even a barrister and he is clearly quite competent at his job. He speaks two languages with the option for picking up a third. He makes a monthly income at his profession of 22-28 gold pieces assuming he has no bonuses to Wisdom (which is a nice wage). He can take 10 on Knowledge checks untrained to answer easy (DC 5) questions (if he takes 10 he gets a 6, which means without struggling he can answer any easy questions such as what the name of lord of his community is, which road leads to Waterdeep, etc. He can answer up to average questions (DC 10) on a given subject most of the time by rolling (he has a 35% chance to answer any average question that doesn't require training to answer, with a +5% success rate for every 1 point the DC is lower than 10).
If you met this character in game, would you KNOW that he has a 3 Intelligence? Probably not. You don't get to see his statblock. But this is far from some frothing moron who eats his own poo. He has the average Intelligence SCORE of a Gray Render or Rast, but his functionality vastly exceeds that of both the Gray Render and the Rast...at least as far as is concerned to humans. In fact, one might say his functionality is akin to someone who has been under-educated (as a member of a fantasy society without a public school system who learn their trades through things like apprenticeship) but is otherwise a fully functional member of society. Perhaps even respected in his community.
I do hope we continue to speak about 3E. I've played it (or some iteration of it) religiously since it launched in 2000 and I do love discussing the ins and outs of it.
* While unable to speak a language, the character can still communicate by grunts and gestures.
If the DM allows characters to have proficiencies, this column also indicates the number of extra proficiency slots the character gains due to his Intelligence. These extra proficiency slots can be used however the player desires. The character never needs to spend any proficiency slots to speak his native language.
Spell Level lists the highest level of spells that can be cast by a wizard with this Intelligence.
Chance to Learn Spell is the percentage probability that a wizard can learn a particular spell. A check is made as the wizard comes across new spells, not as he advances in level. To make the check, the wizard character must have access to a spell book containing the spell. If the player rolls the listed percentage or less, his character can learn the spell and copy it into his own spell book. If the wizard fails the roll, he cannot check that spell again until he advances to the next level (provided he still has access to the spell).
Maximum Number of Spells per Level (Optional Rule)
This number indicates the maximum number of spells a wizard can know from any particular spell level. Once a wizard has learned the maximum number of spells he is allowed in a given spell level, he cannot add any more spells of that level to his spell book (unless the optional spell research system is used). Once a spell is learned, it cannot be unlearned and replaced by a new spell.
For example, Delsenora the wizard has an Intelligence of 14. She currently knows seven 3rd-level spells. During an adventure, she finds a musty old spell book on the shelves of a dank, forgotten library. Blowing away the dust, she sees a 3rd-level spell she has never seen before! Excited, she sits down and carefully studies the arcane notes. Her chance to learn the spell is 60%. Rolling the dice, Delsenora's player rolls a 37. She understands the curious instructions and can copy them into her own spell book. When she is finished, she has eight 3rd-level spells, only one away from her maximum number. If the die roll had been greater than 60, or she already had nine 3rd-level spells in her spell book, or the spell had been greater than 7th level (the maximum level her Intelligence allows her to learn), she could not have added it to her collection.
Spell Immunity is gained by those with exceptionally high Intelligence scores. Those with the immunity notice some inconsistency or inexactness in the illusion or phantasm, automatically allowing them to make their saving throws. All benefits are cumulative, thus, a character with a 20 Intelligence is not fooled by 1st- or 2nd-level illusion spells.
=======================
For anyone but a mage, 2 Int or better in 2E is enough to tango! :P Yep. That's right. There is actually 0% benefit to having an Intelligence score higher than 2 and lower than 9. If you're not a Mage, anything up to 18 just gets you more languages. Unless you're a gnome, then you can ignore 1st level illusion spells (whoopti-friggin-do :P).
I suppose if you have to make an Ability Check to solve a puzzle or something it can suck having only a 5-10% chance to succeed. But y'know. What's amusing in 2E is that 1 Int is still enough to communicate without a language (indicating that you can still perceive your situation and communicate through Grog the Barbarian grunts like a cave man).
But y'know, I'm sure it's just all about eating the poo.
You probally only read my last post about the issue to speak of liking flaws, when ppl want to be stupid and speak with offense intent only, that's the way they act, so your behavior didn't escape the ordinary. I make defense of stats that respect roleplay issues, so i also play with flawed characters evidently.
Err...what?
If you think an BG saga, where ppl reach lvl 40 should be played with an average 9 stats in all atributes... well, the best luck with that.
Sorcerer? :P
Also, given that it would look extremely hypocritical of you to say this after trying to imply that I was misrepresenting your dismissal of statistical facts and mathematics in favor of your own hersay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to a misunderstanding due to reading comprehension woes since English is not your first language (I'm sure I'd have more trouble discussing in Portuguese than you would in English).
What I actually said was that I like characters to have flaws. Kellon Brownstaff of Backdoor might have an 18 Intelligence and his casting is hax, but his Charisma (a 5) kind of sucks and he's not very good at pull-ups due to his Strength (6 here perhaps). Maybe his great genius blinds him socially and makes it all the more difficult to function socially. Maybe he could be named Sheldon. Who knows. What we do know is he isn't the ultra-awesome mage who happens to also be at least average at everything he doesn't already excel at.
Such characters strike me as a bit Mary Sue-ish. That's my opinion. But the difference between you and I appears to be in our tolerance of others. See, if you were to sit down at my D&D table and give me a character who had no flaws, I might roll my eyes a little in the back of my mind and think it boring, but I'm not going to tell you "you're roleplaying wrong" (because you're not, nor am I, nor is Wowo or others in this thread).
Unfortunally imbecility isn't a disease, but rather a choice of keep eyes closed, i can offer clarify but not an panacea for your problem mr. @Ashiel, among all i have said, at least i hope you get clarified enough to not flame without reason people that peacefully argue in the threads of this forum.
When a troll find a parterre the result can be nasty. Some fallacious people could get ashamed of their amateurism in the subject. Even the official player handbook has been discredited as a source.
@Dee maybe is time to end this thread i dare to suggest.
Everyone needs to calm down. I'm not going to close this thread (yet), but we could all stand to re-read the Site Rules. it looks a bit like some of you may be forgetting about one or more of them.
You guys are having way to big an argument on weather or not my Character is dumb.
Actually my commentary was mostly in regards to how I think putting other people or their playstyles down is in poor form. I regret that your druid couldn't dual-class (it is a rather complicated mechanic, especially for those new to the game), but I don't think you should be insulted for your stat choices like you were somehow playing the game incorrectly. Or anyone for that matter. It just kind of grinds my gears.
I'm honestly not sure how all this talk about flaming got started. Honestly this thread seems pretty lukewarm to me (but then I also frequent a lot of RPG messageboards, and some of those can be downright vitriolic so maybe I didn't notice), and I think for the most part the discussion has been an interesting one. In my posts alone we've seen:
1) Multiple citations from the 2E PHB. 2) Multiple citations from the 3.x PHB. 4) Multiple citations from the 3.x MM. 5) Multiple citations of mathematical probability that breaks down the statistical regularity of people in D&D. 6) A brief mechanical breakdown of a character with a 3 Intelligence who can function and excel in the world without being an adventurer and while making plenty of money in their profession.
In Kamuizin's posts we've seen Kamuzin: 1) Tell people they're roleplaying/playing wrong. 2) Call me an imbecile. 3) Call me a troll. 4) Call me a flamer. 5) Call me stupid. 6) Call people fallacious (without explaining what fallacy they are committing). 7) Openly misrepresent something I've said (such as arguing against wanting heroes with strait 9s as a result of my saying I enjoyed heroes who weren't perfect across the board - which actually IS a strawman fallacy, and I'm fine with pointing it out for those who aren't aware. See Strawman Fallacy Explained).
(We've also seen Kamuizin flag my post where I said I use a dictionary to avoid misunderstanding or misconstruing meanings of words, because apparently the use of a dictionary is offensive? I'm still trying to figure that one out.)
It makes me sad really. We have the grounds for a really interesting discussion here, and honestly I would have liked to discuss it a lot more. I really do like how we had the budding opportunity to see how Intelligence (or really any ability score) has evolved throughout the editions, and discuss character building and concepts, and yet this is what it comes to.
This topic has spawned a bit of an idea that's been bouncing around my head.
Here is the proposal: No reload, 3 stat, 75 point, role played adventures. Basically, start a new game with a 3 in any stat and then role play the consequences. Try to figure out why your character has such a low stat, where it makes an impact in the game, if it is possible to complete (while role playing) etc.
Some brainstorming could be done about what impact such a stat would have. Charname should always be party leader as its too easy to cover weaknesses if you let someone else be the face.
Would there be enough interest in this for me to start a thread for it?
I see. Is it possible to get my character to 17 cha without using cheats?
You can just go to the Gnoll Stronghold and take the Tome of Leadership and Influence(+1 permanent Charisma) and use it on your character. Then save the game and exit. Next you just import your character from the saved game.
I don't consider that cheating. Maybe cheesing but not cheating.
I see. Is it possible to get my character to 17 cha without using cheats?
You can just go to the Gnoll Stronghold and take the Tome of Leadership and Influence(+1 permanent Charisma) and use it on your character. Then save the game and exit. Next you just import your character from the saved game.
I don't consider that cheating. Maybe cheesing but not cheating.
Duping items is cheating but its a single player game so who cares?
This topic has spawned a bit of an idea that's been bouncing around my head.
Here is the proposal: No reload, 3 stat, 75 point, role played adventures. Basically, start a new game with a 3 in any stat and then role play the consequences. Try to figure out why your character has such a low stat, where it makes an impact in the game, if it is possible to complete (while role playing) etc.
Some brainstorming could be done about what impact such a stat would have. Charname should always be party leader as its too easy to cover weaknesses if you let someone else be the face.
Would there be enough interest in this for me to start a thread for it?
I dunno if there would be a lot of interest, but it's an amusing thought. Unfortunately due to the way the mechanics of the game works it's difficult to do this in a really meaningful way. For example, a wizard doesn't really care about Strength except for the horror that is carrying capacity (but we have Minsc for this :P), but having a sub-9 Intelligence is actually impossible for a Mage. Similarly with a Fighter, and most classes have some sort of minimum statistic in 2E that you can't play the class without meeting.
The most likely suspects to find as playable with a 3 in a statistic are probably:
Fighter (3 Int, 3 Wis, or Cha have essentially no effect, though for non-archers tanking Con or Dex is suicide)
Mage (3 Str, Dex, Cha, or even Con if you're feeling ballsy and are very good with your defensive spells)
Thief (IIRC I think you only need a 9 Dex to qualify so that leaves you with the option of 3 Str, 3 Con, 3 Int, 3 Wis, or 3 Cha (I imagine the biggest difficulty with the thief is you're probably going to need to use traps to kill anything if your Strength is 3 since I'm pretty sure that prevents using 90% of the weapons in this game)
Cleric (can easily tank Int and Cha to 3 each, possibly Dex and Con. For some clerics a 3 Str wouldn't be the end of the world but it makes it feel like you're not a cleric since you can't wear armor or shields effectively, making you basically a divine mage with ugly clothes).
Bard (I forget what the bard requirements are but I'm pretty sure you could run 3 Str or 3 Wis and get away with it, making up the slack by using thief skills, spells, and bardic music - preferably skald song - in a martial heavy party).
Sorcerer (I'm pretty positive this is the absolute best class for tanking anything you darn well please. You could likely be successful with a sorcerer who was running stats like 3, 3, 3, 9, 3, 3, 3 and still be able to play one if you know what you're doing since Int means nothing to them).
Druid (these actually are surprisingly decent, with special emphasis on the avenger or shapeshifter druid for obvious reasons. Basically you're a caster, and when you wildshape you replace your ability scores with new ones, so for this character the sky is the limit around your minimum stats. Str, Dex, Con, Int, Cha, it's all potentially dumpable - I think if you have a 3 Con and Wildshape you'll actually end up with more HP than if you didn't tank it, since you have a minimum HP of 1/level, but I've never tested it outside tabletop).
Some of the more exotic classes like Paladin, Ranger, and so forth can have a 3 and still be playable, but their choices of where their 3 can go is much more limited due to the game's forced-ability scores, as both have minimum Wisdom and Charisma modifiers, while also being martial (really only 3 Int is possible for these guys). A special exception stands out with the Inquisitor. Since the Inquisitor's main purpose is to screw over casters, you could potentially use one without them actually fighting, and just spam their innate true seeing and dispel magic (which are by far the strongest in the game, yay Inquisitors :P) while keeping them protected in the back with their 3 Str, Dex, or Con.
In general I think you'll have the most luck with caster classes when it comes to stat dumps, simply because the warrior classes have a much higher need for high overall statistics than magic classes do. Having methods of staying alive beyond HP and AC, several warrior class features (such as the ability to benefit from 17+ Con) simply don't exist without excessive ability scores, and due to the nature of the mechanics they need at least moderate Strength just to wear and wield their equipment. Tanking Dexterity on a front-liner is also a good way to send your warrior to an early grave (though frankly in ToB where everything's going to hit you 95% of the time anyway unless you modded the game, 3 Dex vs 18 Dex is pretty meaningless).
It's humorous that in a certain sense this actually is a push towards balance within the game. Warrior types need more impressive ability scores to function well, while mage types usually only need 1. However, the ability scores warriors don't need they need virtually none of to function (IE - 3 Int, 3 Wis, or 3 Cha is 100% fine for a 2E Fighter-type, though the -3 vs charms and other mind-affecting spells sucks, it could be dealt with tactically--such as with berserking, potions, counter-charms, or warding spells).
Now in tabletop, the Charisma is very important for warrior types because it nets you lots of henchmen. Of course, Baldur's Gate does not allow you a pile of expendable henchmen to arm with bows and help you bring ruin to your foes, and thus it has little effect beyond price adjustments and some reaction tests (which you could have a more suitable "party face" to do your negotiating, which is the norm in tabletop RPGs, or cast spells like friends, or in BG II, don a Ring of Human Influence.
I see. Is it possible to get my character to 17 cha without using cheats?
You can just go to the Gnoll Stronghold and take the Tome of Leadership and Influence(+1 permanent Charisma) and use it on your character. Then save the game and exit. Next you just import your character from the saved game.
I don't consider that cheating. Maybe cheesing but not cheating.
Duping items is cheating but its a single player game so who cares?
What's humorous about this is that arguably if he re-started the game multiple times to amass additional copies of the tomes, most people would see it as dedicated powergaming rather than cheating. Theoretically by re-playing through BG over and over, you achieve 25 in all statistics - legally - without using an editor or duping items. More than likely you'd probably hit the XP cap by your 2nd playthrough if not earlier. You might even be able to speed run it on the 2nd trip.
IIRC, I think each playthrough with the same character can net you: +1 Str, Dex, Con, Int, Cha, and +3 Wisdom if you find every Tome in the game (including the Wisdom tome in the expansion content).
I see. Is it possible to get my character to 17 cha without using cheats?
You can just go to the Gnoll Stronghold and take the Tome of Leadership and Influence(+1 permanent Charisma) and use it on your character. Then save the game and exit. Next you just import your character from the saved game.
I don't consider that cheating. Maybe cheesing but not cheating.
Duping items is cheating but its a single player game so who cares?
What's humorous about this is that arguably if he re-started the game multiple times to amass additional copies of the tomes, most people would see it as dedicated powergaming rather than cheating. Theoretically by re-playing through BG over and over, you achieve 25 in all statistics - legally - without using an editor or duping items. More than likely you'd probably hit the XP cap by your 2nd playthrough if not earlier. You might even be able to speed run it on the 2nd trip.
IIRC, I think each playthrough with the same character can net you: +1 Str, Dex, Con, Int, Cha, and +3 Wisdom if you find every Tome in the game (including the Wisdom tome in the expansion content).
At 8 charisma that is a lot of additional runs through that part of the game. Since you are probably most likely to only bother picking up the constitution book, one of the wisdom books (Durlags tower), and the charisma book you could still benefit in some regards from it.
Comments
I'm Brazilian and Portuguese is my main language.
But this is just as interesting.
A character with a 3 Intelligence is still capable of speaking one or more languages and practice a profession. Due to the soft nature of mental ability scores and what they mean, a low Intelligence can represent everything from outright stupidity to lack of motivation to apply themselves to lack of education. All it does is modify a few statistics in very specific ways and by the very rules has 0% impact on your character from a roleplaying perspective (I quoted the actual 2E PHB that said that the number on your Intelligence has little bearing on your actual character's mind).
"However, the true capabilities of a mind lie not in numbers--I.Q., Intelligence score, or whatever. Many intelligent, even brilliant, people in the real world fail to apply their minds creatively and usefully, thus falling far below their own potential. Don't rely too heavily on your character's Intelligence score; you must provide your character with the creativity and energy he supposedly possesses!"
But all that aside, I'm not the guy who's acting haughty and telling other people that the way that they play is wrong. I'm just the guy quoting the facts and letting others make up their minds from that.
Statistics are an... lemme be soft with the words... not smart way to evaluate things literally.
Intelligence has nothing to do with knowledge just to state, that's wisdom portifolio.
The temperature status of a person with the foots in the freezer and the head on furnace is? Normal by statistics standards.
Also Intelligence actually does equate heavily to knowledge. In fact, it was the statistic that defines Wizards, and governs Knowledge (the skill) in latter editions. In 2E, Int is noted as a statistical measurement of memory, reasoning, and learning ability outside the written word. It notes a character with a 3 Int as being semi-Intelligent. Semi is defined as "often" and "Intelligent" as:
1. having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals: an intelligent student.
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment: an intelligent reply.
3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence: intelligent beings in outer space.
Combined with the rulebook literally saying that true potential of the mind is not measured by Intelligence and that you should play as you will, it's pretty much the nail in the coffin on any sort of idea that 3 Int humans are somehow gravely handicapped individuals ready to fling and eat poo. The manuals do not agree with you, the game does not agree with you, and statistics that quantify the game we are discussing do not agree with you.
So please forgive me for not taking your word as some sort of holy sacrament. When the rule books over several editions disagree with you, the math disagrees with you, and the best you can do is tell me to ignore statistics and insist that having a 10+ somehow makes you a good role-player? Haha, at least it's entertaining to watch.
On a side note, it's my personal preference that characters do have some flaws. The average ability scores for characters in the world is between 9-12 with 10-11 being the most statistically likely (at about 12.5% each versus the 11.6% for 9 and 12). I like it when characters aren't Mary Sue superhumans who have no statistics less than the average but plenty above. See, from where I'm sitting, that grinds my gears a little bit from a roleplaying perspective. I like that Brufus the Berserker might not be very knowledgeable, or that Edvard the Magician is prone to putting his foot in his mouth like so much Sheldon. The difference between you and I is that I'm not going to come on these boards (or any other boards, or even declare to a PC for a game I'm GMing tabletop for) that they are roleplaying wrong because they don't adhere to my narrow preferences and opinions, or attempt to pass those opinions off as facts without some data to support it.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Intelligence
But i believe you gonna want a more trusty source, so i found this link for an digital copy of player 3.5E handbook (page 9). Just take a look at the comments on intelligence attribute there, about the definition of 3 intelligence specifically.
http://www.aegisoft.be/costa/data/roleplay/D&D 3.5 - Players Handbook [OEF].pdf
So, here goes a list from the player handbook itself for examples related to intelligence: You base your entire argument in statistics, now when i ponder your arguments you "state" that i'm against statistics. So, before saying that i made up something, have the trouble of AT LEAST research the subject to avoid be forced to swallow your words. That's trully shameful, specially if no one offended you before.
My affirmative is that statistics can't be the sole base of an argument and you changed my words for "statistics had to be discharged".
By the own player handbook: So intelligence define how well a person can absorb knowledge and process it, while wisdom is more an issue of awareness, both define knowledge so i give that my statement for wisdom to represent knowledge is not true, while this doesn't give true to your own statements.
You probally only read my last post about the issue to speak of liking flaws, when ppl want to be stupid and speak with offense intent only, that's the way they act, so your behavior didn't escape the ordinary. I make defense of stats that respect roleplay issues, so i also play with flawed characters evidently.
If you think an BG saga, where ppl reach lvl 40 should be played with an average 9 stats in all atributes... well, the best luck with that.
Unfortunally imbecility isn't a disease, but rather a choice of keep eyes closed, i can offer clarify but not an panacea for your problem mr. @Ashiel, among all i have said, at least i hope you get clarified enough to not flame without reason people that peacefully argue in the threads of this forum.
To be perfectly frank, this is complete and utter nonsense. Someone with their feet in the freezer and their head in a furnace is not statistically normal. Their mean temperature is statistically normal, but their temperature's standard deviation is well outside the normal range. Since no statistician would tell you that they can characterize a distribution by its mean alone, it makes absolutely no sense to claim that such a temperature distribution is "normal by statistics standards."
That is all. Rant over. Carry on.
So much for not quoting sources eh? (Psst, I quoted the 2E player's handbook at length, twice, and noted it. Try practicing your reading comprehension.)
But you see, if we jump directly to 3E, you've expanded my range of ammunition to truly mind-boggling proportions. See, in the 3.x Player's Handbook, it gives a quick example of average intelligence based on race. See, where the human average of Intelligence is 10-11, the average intelligence of a Rast is 3 Int, which is also the average Int as a Gray Render. But at no point does it say that having X in an ability score makes you "as this creature in mannerisms or function". Creatures often have nuances that vary wildly. For example, Rasts are described as being cunning in combat, and notes their tactical awareness but lists no languages. Gray renders likewise apparently have no language. A human with a 3 Intelligence however can speak 3-5 different languages at 1st level just using their racial skill points and still be able to function well in society (that many languages could make you a translator).
What it actually says is:
"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. The ability is important for Wizards because it affects how many spells they can cast, how hard their spells are to resist, and how powerful their spells can be. It's also important to any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills."
It then goes on to describe what Intelligence actually affects within the game world. And then finishes up with.
"A creature of humanlike intelligence has scores of at least 3."
Oh snap, did...did the manual just say that the range of non-damaged human intelligence is 3+!? Oh yes, yes it did. And all that Intelligence actually governs for your character - even in 3.x and Pathfinder - is the modifiers to existing skills. How you choose to roleplay those modifiers is up to you and has always been up to you. Having an ability score of X in anything has never meant anything beyond what it actually says that it means.
A commoner from 3E with a 3 Intelligence (again, roughly 1/216 commoners) will have 8 skill points at 1st level. Said human could invest them as follows: Profession (Anything) 1-4 ranks, Speak Language (Pick one) 2 ranks, 2 ranks left to spend to round out his activities. We could say he was a farmer, or even a barrister and he is clearly quite competent at his job. He speaks two languages with the option for picking up a third. He makes a monthly income at his profession of 22-28 gold pieces assuming he has no bonuses to Wisdom (which is a nice wage). He can take 10 on Knowledge checks untrained to answer easy (DC 5) questions (if he takes 10 he gets a 6, which means without struggling he can answer any easy questions such as what the name of lord of his community is, which road leads to Waterdeep, etc. He can answer up to average questions (DC 10) on a given subject most of the time by rolling (he has a 35% chance to answer any average question that doesn't require training to answer, with a +5% success rate for every 1 point the DC is lower than 10).
If you met this character in game, would you KNOW that he has a 3 Intelligence? Probably not. You don't get to see his statblock. But this is far from some frothing moron who eats his own poo. He has the average Intelligence SCORE of a Gray Render or Rast, but his functionality vastly exceeds that of both the Gray Render and the Rast...at least as far as is concerned to humans. In fact, one might say his functionality is akin to someone who has been under-educated (as a member of a fantasy society without a public school system who learn their trades through things like apprenticeship) but is otherwise a fully functional member of society. Perhaps even respected in his community.
I do hope we continue to speak about 3E. I've played it (or some iteration of it) religiously since it launched in 2000 and I do love discussing the ins and outs of it.
Ability # of Spell Chance to Max. # of Illusion
Score Lang. Level Learn Spell Spells/Level Immunity
1 0* -- -- -- --
2 1 -- -- -- --
3 1 -- -- -- --
4 1 -- -- -- --
5 1 -- -- -- --
6 1 -- -- -- --
7 1 -- -- -- --
8 1 -- -- -- --
9 2 4th 35% 6 --
10 2 5th 40% 7 --
11 2 5th 45% 7 --
12 3 6th 50% 7 --
13 3 6th 55% 9 --
14 4 7th 60% 9 --
15 4 7th 65% 11 --
16 5 8th 70% 11 --
17 6 8th 75% 14 --
18 7 9th 85% 18 --
19 8 9th 95% All 1st-level
20 9 9th 96% All 2nd-level
21 10 9th 97% All 3rd-level
22 11 9th 98% All 4th-level
23 12 9th 99% All 5th-level
24 15 9th 100% All 6th-level
25 20 9th 100% All 7th-level
* While unable to speak a language, the character can still communicate by grunts and gestures.
If the DM allows characters to have proficiencies, this column also indicates the number of extra proficiency slots the character gains due to his Intelligence. These extra proficiency slots can be used however the player desires. The character never needs to spend any proficiency slots to speak his native language.
Spell Level lists the highest level of spells that can be cast by a wizard with this Intelligence.
Chance to Learn Spell is the percentage probability that a wizard can learn a particular spell. A check is made as the wizard comes across new spells, not as he advances in level. To make the check, the wizard character must have access to a spell book containing the spell. If the player rolls the listed percentage or less, his character can learn the spell and copy it into his own spell book. If the wizard fails the roll, he cannot check that spell again until he advances to the next level (provided he still has access to the spell).
Maximum Number of Spells per Level (Optional Rule)
This number indicates the maximum number of spells a wizard can know from any particular spell level. Once a wizard has learned the maximum number of spells he is allowed in a given spell level, he cannot add any more spells of that level to his spell book (unless the optional spell research system is used). Once a spell is learned, it cannot be unlearned and replaced by a new spell.
For example, Delsenora the wizard has an Intelligence of 14. She currently knows seven 3rd-level spells. During an adventure, she finds a musty old spell book on the shelves of a dank, forgotten library. Blowing away the dust, she sees a 3rd-level spell she has never seen before! Excited, she sits down and carefully studies the arcane notes. Her chance to learn the spell is 60%. Rolling the dice, Delsenora's player rolls a 37. She understands the curious instructions and can copy them into her own spell book. When she is finished, she has eight 3rd-level spells, only one away from her maximum number. If the die roll had been greater than 60, or she already had nine 3rd-level spells in her spell book, or the spell had been greater than 7th level (the maximum level her Intelligence allows her to learn), she could not have added it to her collection.
Spell Immunity is gained by those with exceptionally high Intelligence scores. Those with the immunity notice some inconsistency or inexactness in the illusion or phantasm, automatically allowing them to make their saving throws. All benefits are cumulative, thus, a character with a 20 Intelligence is not fooled by 1st- or 2nd-level illusion spells.
=======================
For anyone but a mage, 2 Int or better in 2E is enough to tango! :P
Yep. That's right. There is actually 0% benefit to having an Intelligence score higher than 2 and lower than 9. If you're not a Mage, anything up to 18 just gets you more languages. Unless you're a gnome, then you can ignore 1st level illusion spells (whoopti-friggin-do :P).
I suppose if you have to make an Ability Check to solve a puzzle or something it can suck having only a 5-10% chance to succeed. But y'know. What's amusing in 2E is that 1 Int is still enough to communicate without a language (indicating that you can still perceive your situation and communicate through Grog the Barbarian grunts like a cave man).
But y'know, I'm sure it's just all about eating the poo.
Also, given that it would look extremely hypocritical of you to say this after trying to imply that I was misrepresenting your dismissal of statistical facts and mathematics in favor of your own hersay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to a misunderstanding due to reading comprehension woes since English is not your first language (I'm sure I'd have more trouble discussing in Portuguese than you would in English).
What I actually said was that I like characters to have flaws. Kellon Brownstaff of Backdoor might have an 18 Intelligence and his casting is hax, but his Charisma (a 5) kind of sucks and he's not very good at pull-ups due to his Strength (6 here perhaps). Maybe his great genius blinds him socially and makes it all the more difficult to function socially. Maybe he could be named Sheldon. Who knows. What we do know is he isn't the ultra-awesome mage who happens to also be at least average at everything he doesn't already excel at.
Such characters strike me as a bit Mary Sue-ish. That's my opinion. But the difference between you and I appears to be in our tolerance of others. See, if you were to sit down at my D&D table and give me a character who had no flaws, I might roll my eyes a little in the back of my mind and think it boring, but I'm not going to tell you "you're roleplaying wrong" (because you're not, nor am I, nor is Wowo or others in this thread). Who was flaming exactly? Is that a mirror of opposition I dost detect?
@Dee maybe is time to end this thread i dare to suggest.
Everyone needs to calm down. I'm not going to close this thread (yet), but we could all stand to re-read the Site Rules. it looks a bit like some of you may be forgetting about one or more of them.
I'm honestly not sure how all this talk about flaming got started. Honestly this thread seems pretty lukewarm to me (but then I also frequent a lot of RPG messageboards, and some of those can be downright vitriolic so maybe I didn't notice), and I think for the most part the discussion has been an interesting one. In my posts alone we've seen:
1) Multiple citations from the 2E PHB.
2) Multiple citations from the 3.x PHB.
4) Multiple citations from the 3.x MM.
5) Multiple citations of mathematical probability that breaks down the statistical regularity of people in D&D.
6) A brief mechanical breakdown of a character with a 3 Intelligence who can function and excel in the world without being an adventurer and while making plenty of money in their profession.
In Kamuizin's posts we've seen Kamuzin:
1) Tell people they're roleplaying/playing wrong.
2) Call me an imbecile.
3) Call me a troll.
4) Call me a flamer.
5) Call me stupid.
6) Call people fallacious (without explaining what fallacy they are committing).
7) Openly misrepresent something I've said (such as arguing against wanting heroes with strait 9s as a result of my saying I enjoyed heroes who weren't perfect across the board - which actually IS a strawman fallacy, and I'm fine with pointing it out for those who aren't aware. See Strawman Fallacy Explained).
(We've also seen Kamuizin flag my post where I said I use a dictionary to avoid misunderstanding or misconstruing meanings of words, because apparently the use of a dictionary is offensive? I'm still trying to figure that one out.)
It makes me sad really. We have the grounds for a really interesting discussion here, and honestly I would have liked to discuss it a lot more. I really do like how we had the budding opportunity to see how Intelligence (or really any ability score) has evolved throughout the editions, and discuss character building and concepts, and yet this is what it comes to.
Here is the proposal:
No reload, 3 stat, 75 point, role played adventures.
Basically, start a new game with a 3 in any stat and then role play the consequences. Try to figure out why your character has such a low stat, where it makes an impact in the game, if it is possible to complete (while role playing) etc.
Some brainstorming could be done about what impact such a stat would have. Charname should always be party leader as its too easy to cover weaknesses if you let someone else be the face.
Would there be enough interest in this for me to start a thread for it?
I don't consider that cheating. Maybe cheesing but not cheating.
The most likely suspects to find as playable with a 3 in a statistic are probably:
Fighter (3 Int, 3 Wis, or Cha have essentially no effect, though for non-archers tanking Con or Dex is suicide)
Mage (3 Str, Dex, Cha, or even Con if you're feeling ballsy and are very good with your defensive spells)
Thief (IIRC I think you only need a 9 Dex to qualify so that leaves you with the option of 3 Str, 3 Con, 3 Int, 3 Wis, or 3 Cha (I imagine the biggest difficulty with the thief is you're probably going to need to use traps to kill anything if your Strength is 3 since I'm pretty sure that prevents using 90% of the weapons in this game)
Cleric (can easily tank Int and Cha to 3 each, possibly Dex and Con. For some clerics a 3 Str wouldn't be the end of the world but it makes it feel like you're not a cleric since you can't wear armor or shields effectively, making you basically a divine mage with ugly clothes).
Bard (I forget what the bard requirements are but I'm pretty sure you could run 3 Str or 3 Wis and get away with it, making up the slack by using thief skills, spells, and bardic music - preferably skald song - in a martial heavy party).
Sorcerer (I'm pretty positive this is the absolute best class for tanking anything you darn well please. You could likely be successful with a sorcerer who was running stats like 3, 3, 3, 9, 3, 3, 3 and still be able to play one if you know what you're doing since Int means nothing to them).
Druid (these actually are surprisingly decent, with special emphasis on the avenger or shapeshifter druid for obvious reasons. Basically you're a caster, and when you wildshape you replace your ability scores with new ones, so for this character the sky is the limit around your minimum stats. Str, Dex, Con, Int, Cha, it's all potentially dumpable - I think if you have a 3 Con and Wildshape you'll actually end up with more HP than if you didn't tank it, since you have a minimum HP of 1/level, but I've never tested it outside tabletop).
Some of the more exotic classes like Paladin, Ranger, and so forth can have a 3 and still be playable, but their choices of where their 3 can go is much more limited due to the game's forced-ability scores, as both have minimum Wisdom and Charisma modifiers, while also being martial (really only 3 Int is possible for these guys). A special exception stands out with the Inquisitor. Since the Inquisitor's main purpose is to screw over casters, you could potentially use one without them actually fighting, and just spam their innate true seeing and dispel magic (which are by far the strongest in the game, yay Inquisitors :P) while keeping them protected in the back with their 3 Str, Dex, or Con.
In general I think you'll have the most luck with caster classes when it comes to stat dumps, simply because the warrior classes have a much higher need for high overall statistics than magic classes do. Having methods of staying alive beyond HP and AC, several warrior class features (such as the ability to benefit from 17+ Con) simply don't exist without excessive ability scores, and due to the nature of the mechanics they need at least moderate Strength just to wear and wield their equipment. Tanking Dexterity on a front-liner is also a good way to send your warrior to an early grave (though frankly in ToB where everything's going to hit you 95% of the time anyway unless you modded the game, 3 Dex vs 18 Dex is pretty meaningless).
It's humorous that in a certain sense this actually is a push towards balance within the game. Warrior types need more impressive ability scores to function well, while mage types usually only need 1. However, the ability scores warriors don't need they need virtually none of to function (IE - 3 Int, 3 Wis, or 3 Cha is 100% fine for a 2E Fighter-type, though the -3 vs charms and other mind-affecting spells sucks, it could be dealt with tactically--such as with berserking, potions, counter-charms, or warding spells).
Now in tabletop, the Charisma is very important for warrior types because it nets you lots of henchmen. Of course, Baldur's Gate does not allow you a pile of expendable henchmen to arm with bows and help you bring ruin to your foes, and thus it has little effect beyond price adjustments and some reaction tests (which you could have a more suitable "party face" to do your negotiating, which is the norm in tabletop RPGs, or cast spells like friends, or in BG II, don a Ring of Human Influence.
Just some thoughts on the matter. ^-^
IIRC, I think each playthrough with the same character can net you: +1 Str, Dex, Con, Int, Cha, and +3 Wisdom if you find every Tome in the game (including the Wisdom tome in the expansion content).