That's a good plan user, but your character isn't smart enough to have thought of it

My DM does this too and it works fine. It's either "Have a smarter character come up with it IC" or "Your telepathic horse came up with it and is trying to get you to explain it intelligibly".

No-one's forced to dumpstat Int though? Like, you have 2-3 important stats on a character and can likely afford to get an unimportant stat to 12-ish for fluff purposes. I ran an Int 14 Archer Battlemaster for a year and it worked fine.

>Okay, he thought of it *points to the wizard*

Was that so hard?

>Wizards deserve a spell for everything along with being the only class able to write their name, read, or think beyond "me hit! Me kill!"
>Martials are entitled brats for thinking that they DESERVE to play anything but mother may I.

I pity anyone that plays in your autistic group. Are people that dumpstat charisma allowed to speak in anything but broken sentences? Do people with 8 strength need a motorized wheelchair?

Unless every wizard in your setting is Stephen Hawking you aren't allowed to say anything.

8 is below-average. It's not a crippling disability. I know you're trolling so here's your (You)

>That's a good speech user, but looks like your charisma is too low.
>That's a nice staff user, but looks like your strength is too low to pick it up

You're implying numbers on a sheet overrule player agency and I disagree.

And being a little bit below average in intelligence doesn't stop you from ever coming up with any plans, especially if it's normal battle plans that come up when fighting goblins. He wasn't trolling, he was just pointing out the problem with people sometimes treating "below average" as a crippling disability.

And that's because you're an entitled min-maxer who wants his character to be awesome at everything. Comparing an 8 stat to people who are crippled or incoherent is absurd hyperbole.

>b-b-b-b-but muh agency!

This isn't about agency, it's about you being someone who can't stand being told 'no' for any reason, and refusing to comprimise on your min-maxed character. The answer to dumpstat issues is not having a dumpstat.

>Comparing an 8 stat to people who are crippled or incoherent is absurd hyperbole.
Well saying that someone with 8 INT is a functional retard who cannot come up with any sensible plans is also absurd hyperbole.

That wasn't our hyperbole, that was his hyperbole.

What we're arguing against is what he said here: . What he's saying is that 8 INT and 8 WIS = expert strategist who outdoes a 20 INT wizard. In his argument he seems to think he can either be an expert strategist or completely retarded, nothing in between, and makes no attempt to roleplay around it and/or work around it.

>What he's saying is that 8 INT and 8 WIS = expert strategist who outdoes a 20 INT wizard.
Reread what he's saying chief. He's basically saying that in SPITE of his below average INT and WIS, he's still outdoing the wizard because he himself can come up with better plans than the wizard's player.

You're also misunderstanding his point, which was that if 8 INT means that you can never come up with sensible plans because you're too stupid, then a dude with 8 STR should be confined to a wheelchair because they cannot support their own weight. If that's not the case then the dude with 8 STR should be able to walk unassisted and the dude with 8 INT should be able to come up with plans.

Sidenote: I love how people like you go on about the dude with 8 INT having moments of clarity because it ruins the immersion, while stopping game to cite their INT score while going on about how that's too smart for their character to come up with.

Just saying.

Having low int and low wis should affect your roleplaying. You can still come up with ideas out of character and share them as long as your group isn't fucking retarded.

Low charisma characters *can* make eloquent speeches, but they'll still have trouble making people believe them. Low int/wis characters can learn and have moments of clarity, but it will not the common thing. Pretending stats dont affect roleplaying means there's no point of havhing stats beyond ability mods and having played character with eight or lower wis, I think it's missing out on some fun too.

It's called ROLEPLAYING.
You have a ROLE.
A CHARACTER.
Who is STUPID.
And you PLAY A STUPID CHARACTER.
If you don't want to play a stupid character, build a smart character and play one.
Dammit.

>Having low int and low wis should affect your roleplaying.
It really shouldn't especially if the goal is to immerse the players into the game, rather than focusing on the mechanics listed on their sheet.
>Pretending stats dont affect roleplaying means there's no point of havhing stats beyond ability mods and having played character with eight or lower wis, I think it's missing out on some fun too.
Honestly, the game was much better when it didn't give stats a whole lot of focus overall. If you're going to roleplay, it should be completely divorced from the numbers listed on your sheet, especially if the game's rules cause cognitive dissonance whenever you try to meld the mechanics and the narrative together.

Believe me, people are going to be sucked out of the game a lot more when you pause it to call foul on someone's intellect than they would if you just let the dude come up with his plan.

The problem is that D&D doesn't give you any incentives to go outside of your party's niche and the skill system is fairly barebones and rigid for what it expects people to do.

Having 10+ INT is worthless for a Fighter or a Barbarian outside of DM fiat because nothing they have takes advantage of their INT, even if it's high enough to rival the resident wizard. Also, skill proficiency will also fuck you over because now, even if you have the same INT as the wizard, you'll always be a few steps behind them in terms of your overall INT skills and you'll never catch up to them unless you waste resources to do so. Not to mention, if you succeed, you're just stepping on the wizard's toes while also leaving the group with one less role filled, meaning that in the end, you just end up sacrificing something the party needs just so YOU personally can be a special snowflake.

If the mechanics allowed a smart Fighter/Barbarian to thrive, more people wouldn't have dump stats.

>The problem is D&D
If only there were games similar to DND but that had no dump stats and instead had incentives for every type of character to want every type of stat.

I've been playing one, it's great.

The point is that if you're playing a character then you shouldn't need to be pulled out of the game because the player *chose* their character and assigned their stats in a way that they should *want* to roleplay. I played a naive character so I didn't roll insight checks on everyone who looked suspicious and ask them deep questions to see if they were trying to trick me. And the mechanics represented my character's inability to see through falsehoods or notice smaller details around the them by giving them a negative mod to those skills.

If you're going to completely ignore mechanics when it comes to rp, then you'd be better off either doing freeform or doing a system with only combat stats and nothing related to personality.

This is generally why the first and only response to most tabletop issues should begin and end with "have you tried NOT playing D&D?"

>that's a nice description user, but you're not strong enough to do that
>that's a nice maneuver user, but you're not quick enough to pull that off
How is that any different

This. I have a player in my group with a druid who has 3 charisma and 7 intellect. Rather than just pretending that those things don't exist, he plays around them and has built his character around those weaknesses, creating a genuinely interesting, fun character.

If you're dumpstatting INT and WIS, you should play them. Good roleplaying embraces the weaknesses of your character, it doesn't just pretend they don't exist.

Holy fuck, why does every goddamn argument get turned into "MARSHULS VS KASTARS"? It's seriously retarded, and it's not even relevant right now

If you decide to play your character a certain way based off of the numbers on your character sheet, or you decide not to roll the die in situations for whatever reason, that's your choice and I'm not going to stop you from playing your character in a certain way.

More to the point, the mechanics have nothing to do with RP, and vice-versa. RP is when you're interacting with the world around you IC while the mechanics are for how you interact with the world OoC. There may be overlap, like how spells are referenced IC and OoC, but overall the two are divorced from one another because you can't expect a player to remain IC while referencing how much HP or AC or spell slots their character has before doing an action.

And I say this as someone who has been in multiple sessions where we spent most of our time RPing and the amount of times I've touched my dice could be counted on one hand.

>trying to turn this into a "have you tried not playing D&D argument
Nice try fuckface, but the problem isn't the system.

I hate D&D as much as the next guy, but regardless of the system players should roleplay their weaknesses.

>b- buh dee en dee forces me to have a dumpstat
This is literally one of the only good things the system does to encourage roleplaying. All legendary characters throughout literature have had some achilles heel, and your powergaming ass just wants to dismiss that because you can't be bothered to play an actual character instead of trying to win a *role-playing* game.

Rolling dice isn't the only way mechanics effect RP. I would argue that divorcing mechanics from narrative is missing the entire point of mechanics and rules in the first place. Mechanics represent the capabilities of your character, RP represents how you use them. A charismatic character isn't just someone with a +4 mod to their bard spells, their character is someone who is well, charismatic. So no, you don't need to know their mod, or how likely they are to succeed on a skill check to RP that - but it represents how the character is percieved and their abilities.

D&D has problems in limiting shit too much based on class, but unless you're playing in a game where you're expected to optimize for combat then it's entirely feasible to build a character that ties RP and mechanics together in an harmonious fashion. And I think ultimately the end goal of mechanical design should be that they all narratively make sense and add to the RP rather than limiting or reducing it.

>All legendary characters throughout literature have had some achilles heel, and your powergaming ass just wants to dismiss that because you can't be bothered to play an actual character instead of trying to win a *role-playing* game.
The difference is that most flaws that these legendary heroes had boiled down to having flaws in their personality, not in their overall abilities.

In most stories, the hero is strong, clever, and able to turn bitter enemies into the most loyal of companions while in D&D, the closest you'd get to that archtype is a Bard since they generally aren't punished for being good at fighting, exploration, and interacting with NPCs.

>Rolling dice isn't the only way mechanics effect RP.
Actually it is, by the RAW. Whether or not you succeed and how well you succeed has always boiled down to whether or not your number is high enough to exceed the threshold of the task that you're attempting to do.

With that in mind, you shouldn't need to roll dice just to say "hello" to a shopkeep that you're attempting to sell rubies to.

You're clearly not understanding the point and just being hyperbolic at this stage.

If you dont have mechanics guiding how your character functions, then every character's capability is entirely based upon the player's. Having high strength means your character is visibly and strong and they know it. Having high charisma means your character is charismatic and everyone knows it. These are mechanics. Stats are mechanical but have implications on RP. A character doesn't become strong because their player is strong, so they shouldn't become intelligent because their player is intelligent.

It's not hard. And before you go down the route of saying its roleplay not rollplay, then no there's a middlepoint there where they both feed into each other beneficially. You could completely remove mechanics and do it entirely through roleplay with freeform and that's ok, I don't give a shit how you have fun. But making everything but combat freeform is just a weird middle point.

Using your example, no you wouldn't need to roll die to say hello. You would make your case for how you want to sell your rubies and for what price - your character's arguments, mannerisms, traits (RP)and charisma/related abilites(mechanics) would all matter here. For example, your character is a low charisma (mechanics) dude who is generally rather rude and forceful (RP) so depending on how the discussion goes they would end with a roll influenced by both the ability mod and the strength of their arguments/threats/sales pitch. If they botch the rp element so hard that there's no point of even rolling, then that's ok. If there's a chance they succeed, then the mechanics determine which way the cookie crumbles.

Low charisma should influence how your character acted in this case. Maybe your character is an introvert and stumbles through his sentence rather than being rude and forceful or they're just hideous.

>Having high strength means your character is visibly and strong and they know it. Having high charisma means your character is charismatic and everyone knows it. These are mechanics.
Actually, those are descriptions.
>A character doesn't become strong because their player is strong, so they shouldn't become intelligent because their player is intelligent.
Not even comparable.
>You would make your case for how you want to sell your rubies and for what price - your character's arguments, mannerisms, traits (RP)and charisma/related abilites(mechanics) would all matter here.
Yet if the argument is sound, you shouldn't need to roll a charisma check in the first place, the RP should be enough.

Reason being, you can RP your ass off, yet because you rolled a 1 on your persuasion, the shopkeep tells you to fuck off anyways. On the flipside, you could act like a tool yet because you rolled high enough, the shopkeep thinks that you're reasonable in spite of you having no argument.

How does his roleplay 3 charisma because that's a severe mental disability.

That being said you can't really have a character with that little charisma. 3 charisma is to the point that are almost entirely incapable of independent thought. 1-2 is when they lose independent thought but are still barely conscious.

I really enjoy my low WIS low INT character. She's super impulsive, and complicated stuff goes right over her head. Playing her is all about jumping in and following your heart!

I hope you realize that the only reason why she isn't dead is because the GM is wearing the kid gloves. Also, you probably piss off everyone else at the table for rushing in and ruining their plans.

>tfw user character is probably a bimbo

>not making Cha checks before speaking and then acting accordingly

Having fun doesn't make you a bimbo!

I try to maintain good OOC rapport with everyone, so I don't think this is an issue! Though they could be lying, I guess.

As a GMing this character would have probably died the moment they just barreled into combat without a plan. If you're gonna play a dumb character at least listen to smart characters.

This is why even shitholes like /pfg/ advocate for high point buy, so that PCs don't have to dumb anything to be competent.

A 25 pb human in Pathfinder can easily afford 14 Int, 12 if you're being cheap.

She does listen when they speak up, and she really likes them and respects their ideas.
They just have to be assertive enough to stay involved in the story!

Because physical and mental tasks are quite different. The most retarded man can get a lucky idea now and then, but a 90 year old man with two broken arms won't be able to throw a balrog off a cliff.

I assume the character has high charisma. High charisma characters with low int/wis are a danger to themselves and others.

Does this apply to the wizard 20+ INT?
> okay guys create a plan to make through my trap
> okay my PC creates a plan for it
> what is it?
> I dunno, my PC created it with his superior intellect. You tell me.

If the plan is too smart for your character then pass it along to a player whose character is smart enough. If that's metagaming still then the DM is being a hypocrite.

>tfw my wizard has 46 int
>tfw his int is 10 points north of "unfathomable intellect"
>tfw look at the GM and say "he solves the problem, he's smarter than any normal can be anyway"

17 Charisma!

Kek.

What if the barbarian's irl intelligence score matches his character's intelligence score?

>Not just RPing interpersonal communication and maintaining immersion within the scene.

How the fuck is having an 18 in Charisma NOT a mechanic? Everything about the game on your character sheet in mechanically unless its shit you just write on it for fluff. Mechanics dont start and end at the roll.

And why should someone playing an attractive charming young person have the exact same social prowess as a hideous orc creature simply because their players are of equal RP prowess? That's not how people work. Charisma reflects things beyond the ability to make rational arguments.

If there's no reason for the shopkeep to reject or accept your offer then no rolls are made. No one is arguing that they should. Rolls only matter when there's a conflict. Your stats should still inform your roleplay and that's basic shit.

It isn't a great leap in logic that a fighter that is extremely skilled despite his low INT could come up with good battle plans.

However, I do believe it is more "in-character" for the fighter to try to help the wizard solve puzzles/problems, rather than doing it themselves, assuming the wizard's player isn't figuring it out.

>How the fuck is having an 18 in Charisma NOT a mechanic?
Reading comprehension: 0

I was referring to the fact that you were giving me a description based upon how high a character's stat was, not that having a high stat isn't a mechanic.
>And why should someone playing an attractive charming young person have the exact same social prowess as a hideous orc creature simply because their players are of equal RP prowess?
Well if the attractive person is Paris Hilton and the orc is Danny Devito, I'm sure that most people would be more willing to listen to the latter than the former, but that's besides the point because CHA doesn't equate to how attractive your character is.
>Rolls only matter when there's a conflict.
Maybe if the conflict becomes physical, but not when it's an argument between two people who have a vested interest in how much the ruby is worth.

Orcish Danny Devito is my new character

Incredibly autistic. Doesn't understand social norms, doesn't understand the idea that other people have consciousness, and is obssessed with shaking people's hands simply because it's the only obvious physical cue that he's managed to pick up on. Also never washes purposefully, but that could arguably be due to living in the wild for the better part of 100 years

No I don't think you understand. 4-5 is "incapable of empathy". Someone at 3 shouldn't be capable of speech. You underestimate 3 in a stat, that's to the point you're no longer human psychologically.

What if my character's mental stats far outreach my own to the point I can no longer roleplay them properly. Like a sorcerer with 26 Charisma or a wizard with 26 intelligence or a cleric with 26 wisdom.

I don't generally play DnD for this exact reason.

I've been playing a game of WHFRP2e where my character has few mechanical weaknesses or disadvantages, more or less because I rolled exceptionally well during character creation. He is, all at once, the most skilled, strongest, toughest, most agile and fastest member of the party by a significant margin. He also has the highest fellowship, meaning he's technically the most diplomatic, while still having decent intelligence and willpower.

His weakness is essentially that he's a Bretonnian Knight, and as such never uses ranged weapons for lore reasons and his vows results in a rigid mode of thinking that prohibits him from using deceit and treachery, and he rarely talks to peasants.

Despite him being the combat powerhouse with no actual mechanical weaknesses, the other players do consider him interesting and believable because he has personality traits that can undermine his own effectiveness. He may have the highest fellowship, but he never talks to peasants so the other party members have to be the diplomatic ones when speaking to them. He may be the most agile, but he never uses it for stealth because that goes against his code.

One thing a lot of people fail to realize is that a good warrior isn't just strong and tough, but is also fast and agile. An exceptional warrior, and by extension the sort of people that make heroes and adventures, is all of that as well as intelligent, cunning, and charismatic. That doesn't mean they aren't flawed in some way, it's just in ways that aren't expressed mechanically in most systems.

You need a general idea at least. You don't just say
>I attack
You need to say at least with what weapon and against whom. Many factors are implied but you still need something. Similarly for problem solving.

Oh I'm sorry, tell me what would be the general idea of a plan of a character with INT 30+ (which is kinda impossible to make since not me or you have this much)

What's the goal/situation?

Solve Bruce Banner's puzzle.

Specific enough of a situation that it just requires the roll or simply enough time if there is no present threat of failure.
Also not creating a plan or trap of any sort.

>What is a warblade

If you want to make a dumb barbarian, go ahead. If you want fancy-smanchy *mechanical inclinations* to go for higher intelligence, a warblade'll do that.

Firstly, that's only a viable solution for 3.5. A very viable solution, but still.

Secondly, warblades don't get enough benefit from int that they can prioritize it much higher than a fighter can. They still need str/dex so they can hit, they still need con so they don't die. They really want good str so they don't become totally dependent on maneuvers/flanking for damage, and so that their "x times base value" and "y extra attacks" maneuvers are working on a strong base. They still want good wis so they don't chump (as hard) to anything that requires a will save. They still want dex for initiative.
Honestly, a warblade's "I WANT THIS STAT" list is just the fighter's list with "int too please" on the end and dex maybe a bit lower.

That said, they can certainly get away much better if they shift points or good rolls from a physical stat to int than a fighter can, but it's still a fairly poor idea. About all they can dump better than a fighter is dex, since they get int to ref, but they still want decent init and can't get int to init off class features.

>A character doesn't become strong because their player is strong, so they shouldn't become intelligent because their player is intelligent.
>Not even comparable.
You're trolling, right?
No one can be this retarded.

I have a high-int high-str warblade. That's why I recommended it. With all of the bonus intelligence, I can make sure my skills are pretty damn high, so I can tumble past enemies and activate feats like Acrobatic Strike. With Diamond Mind, you don't give a shit about power attacking at all since you just need to make a concentration check, and with the Iron Heart stuff, you have enough durability and swift-action-healing that having a high HP pool isn't as important...

Then again, I did make the character to focus on White Raven stuff, to assist other players and give them bonus actions, so it was a 'happy accident' that my character ended up so formidable.

Are you just arguing for the sake of it now? Because I shouldn't have to explain how stupid your premise is and how retarded you look right about now.

I mean, it works. I'm not arguing that it don't work. I'm just saying it works by throwing yet another thing into your "I want this" list and by being such a sound foundation that you can pick less-optimal things and not be screwed like a core martial who picked int over a physical stat.

My personal experience with warblade is that the d12 is nice, but not enough without a good con. And the maneuvers are nice, but you can't really refresh them without using non-maneuver attacks so you need decent ability to hurt things off a standard attack and you just don't have enough to blow through an encounter without reloading. That said, most of my warblade experience is at ECL 1-9. The only IH healing maneuver I'm aware of is 6th level, what level were you starting at? I imagine that would make a big difference.

My warblade got into the game at level 13, when my level level 15 wizard got the Leadership feat to pick up a cohort (And some minions).

Then again, my GM was pretty generous about pointbuy, so MAD doesn't tend to be a problem for our group.

>you have a rock solid argument
>but your cha is low so I'm afraid the otherwise intelligent NPC will have to disagree with you

I think that preventing a high int char from making undeniably retarded decisions is a good idea

Yeah, level 13 and a generous point buy would do it.
I'm used to 25 point PB and level 3 starts.
With the occasional "3d6 down the line in order" 1st level start.

First point is bullshit but I don't let my players discuss plans out of character.

I encourage them to come up with battle plans in character ahead of time. Then once they're in combat, have them inform the others of changes to the plan during their turn.

I think you're all forgetting that 8-10 int is about average intelligence. You're not a genius. Any bullshit you come up with your character should probably be smart enough to do.

Warblade always looked really fun to me, but I only had once chance to play a Nine Swords character, and I went with a Crusader specializing in hitting losers with a Glaive and protecting his friends. Iron Guard's Glare, Thicket of Blades, the Stand Still feat, lots of fun shit. It was a real treat, and I don't regret it, but if I had the chance to play another one, I'd definitely go for a Warblade.

10 is average.
8 is below average.

>You're not a genius
Speak for yourself, m8

My warblade is pretty awesome. Uses light armor, and is pretty neatly balanced between White Raven, Iron Heart, and Diamond Mind. Also uses a chainblade with enlongating attachment, which means that she can attack with or without reach. It's pretty funny- they're a knight, and most of the time they move in a big L shape. (To specifically tumble past someone's attack and get the Acrobatic Strike feat) before attacking

That's pretty great.

Exactly.
Once my group switched from DND and used random rolls for chargen like they did in the olden days, everything improved by a ton. My only regret is that it took so long to do so because we were stubborn and afraid of change.

>used random rolls for chargen
It's exciting when you roll up a smart dextrous fighter, and every character is unique instead of following some cookiecutter pointbuy where there's almost no deviation from whatever is optimal.