Sorry, you have 8 INT. Your character wouldn't be able to figure that out/know that

>Has no awareness of the needs of others, almost no sense of empathy.
>sociopathy means low charisma
perfect example of why this is dumb

It actually does.
>d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/
You can see what different levels of mental stats are described as from the rulebook.

/thread

How about you explain why I shouldn't do that in a way that doesn't make you out to be a minmaxing powergamer trying to overcome self imposed limitations to gain benefits at no cost?

Like this guy.

It is a common misconception that sociopaths are incapable of empathy. That is a falsehood perpetuated by hollywood for the most part. The actual clinical definition of sociopathy is different.

>I told him that after a point he needs to accept that he is playing a character literally outside the normal range of human intelligence, and is in fact significantly below it.

This. So much.

Nothing wrong with that. Thought I do think the way INT works is a problem (since you can have an actual distance between character and player that can't be shortened, specially if the character is smarter than the player).
Anyway, a better approach to this would probably allow the player to roll. If something would be an instant success for a 10 INT character, make he roll to fill that gap. Thought if it is too low, might as well consider it a instant failure.

Hmmmmmmmm sorry mate all I'm seeing here is that it affects starting languages, skill points, and wizard spell slots.

Sorry but you are objectively wrong.

Ok, well honestly it's simple at this point. I kick players who refuse to play the characters they made. Players are an abundant resource, and most players who act like you are awful, so it isn't exactly a loss.

Also most people who are lacking empathy actually know how to suppress it at will. In other words, normal people are the mentally ill ones.

>If you don't run on MY interpretation of unwritten rules I ban you from my Minecraft™ server!
Just admit that you were that kid who would scream about godmodding in freeform RPs on Furcadia.

>Just admit that you were that kid who would scream about godmodding in freeform RPs on Furcadia.
There are in fact descriptions that describe what mental stats mean, and what human average is. 10 is human average.

Making a character far below average and expecting to play them at or above human average is wrong. I have yet to see your reasoning against this beyond 'muh agency'. You had agency, you used it to build a mentally disabled character. Your mechanical decisions matter.

>who would scream about godmodding in freeform RPs on Furcadia.
What an oddly specific example I’m sure has NOTHING to do with you projecting your past autism on others.

Sociopathy having a clinical definition is a Hollywood falsehood.

>a dumb character with no charisma or wisdom can be played smart and charming, you just are playing wrong
You're retarded too, it seems.

That doesn't happen in my group because people actually roleplay instead of just arbitrarily disregarding character flaws whenever it's convenient.

mental stats are shit and shouldn't exist in the first place, it's reasonable for players to ignore them.

Sorry mate but your power fantasy of dungeon mastering stops at how other characters would act. Unless you yourself are of low intelligence you cannot say what they can and cannot do. 3.butthurt runs on rules as written, and if there are no rules for low intelligence, there is no penalty other than losing out on skillpoints and a language at the start.

>there is no penalty other than losing out on skillpoints and a language at the start.
Also the penalty every time you try to attempt an ability score check or skill check involving those mental skills.

Quite literally the GM can simply ask you to make those skill checks, if what you say does not reflect your diplomacy roll then it is you who is wrong.

>my mentally disabled character should be able to act smart
nigga what?

If you don't want to roleplay the character you made then why did you make them?

I don't run D&D at all.

If you're going to make a DC for knowledge why even allow people to automatically know it? Either everyone rolls, or nobody rolls.

There is no penalty for low stats other than their actual listed effects, and no official material says otherwise.

Sure i do, otherwise the point of dumping INT is lost and the PC has literally no side effects

player skill should be privileged over character skill

It's why figuring out how to disable a trap will always be more fulfilling than "I roll disable device

We have many examples of low mental stats being described in terms of monsters, we can extrapolate that your character is not somehow unique compared to them.

Again, if you didn't want to roleplay the character you made then why did you make them?

>Playing a Cleric in a campaign
>Have 20 Wisdom
>Usually very quiet in all situations as my party members shout and bicker endlessly while trying stupid shit
>Quietly heal them up and talk down angered NPCs
>Get called out at one point for rarely coming up with ideas and only doing damage control
>Use the "Better to be assumed a fool..." line to explain myself

Does that fit?

This thread reeks of 3.Fags.

If the player happens to be a blacksmith in real life and would know how to make a sword, would you let the character make it if the player told the DM exactly what the character would do?

Grog no read, but OP seems like a wise wizard man.

Only fits if you have high Wis and low Int, because then, by being aware of your limitations, you choose to be quiet. Otherwise, no.

>be 8 int dwarf fighter
>DM rules my character wouldn't be smart enough to tie a rope to his handaxe in order to reel it back in after he throws it

if you're shy and don't like the spotlight, yes.
Otherwise you really should point it out when your party has some dumb idea
>"better be assumed a fool..."
if i was a member of your party i would never trust you again after this.

but that's exactly what a retarded dwarf would do.
Bonus points if it isn't even a throwing axe

10 is human average. 8 means you're a borderline ape.

9 is human average, 8 would be slightly below average then. Even if the average was 10 then 8 int would just be an uneducated person.
If INT is IQ then an 8 would still be not counted as mental retardation (even though IQ is a meme)

10.5 is human average.

Acting at basic level intelligence isn't that improbable.
Even apes know how the relation of stick and banana at end of string interact.
10 is merely average intelligence. Going below 10 does not automatically assume disabilities in learning.

10 in D&D and 80 IQ irl is still above mental retardation. What are you smoking?

I've done something like this

>Player has very low CHA
>Tries to make a elaborate argument in order to persuade a NPC to give them something the party needed to advance
>"you find yourself choking on your own words and spitting all over the noblewoman's face"

Did they critically fail the persuasion check or are you just That DM?

I guess I should have been more specific. I would state my opinion on something being dumb and I'd usually be ritual casting Detect _____ in most situations but then someone would just touch the Orb or stand in front of the dragon statue with an open mouth. My party members are just extremely loud, assertive and impatient.

10 is human average, 9 is slightly below, 8 is clearly below. By 7 you already start to have speech impediments.

It really shouldn't be. Nobody would think that an athlete should have advantages to their physical scores in game, so there's no reason that an intellectual should have advantages to their mental scores.

Player skill is an advantage in having the mastery to build a competent character and the cleverness to navigate your character within their framework. The fact that you're skilled in something gives you the leeway to argue why things would work, but it should never allow you to circumvent weaknesses in your character.

Then you aren't being wise enough to say "no" and invest your GP on a good portion of land, grow some crops, maybe build a small chapel, get lordship, etc.
Why risk your life when you can be much more?

Come back after you've found the definition of normal

(You)

use force to put them out of harm's way then. Or let them die and then say "i told you so you stupid ape"

I had a player who was playing a half orc with, no shit, a 3 int. At one point in the game a player wanted to borrow some money from him, and he was setting up a fucking interest rate on the loan. Now, I didn't tell him that he wasn't allowed to get paid back, but I was not going to be fine with his illiterate 3 int barbarian half orc keeping track of interest rates over the course of weeks.

I feel there is an unspoken rule about role-playing that you should at least not try to apply your own intelligence on your character, but I will admit that not allowing a player to figure something out in-gane because of their character's mental stats is bullshit.

I gave him a chance to roll persuade afterwards and he passed it. It's more fun when your disadvantages have actual consequences imo

The consequence is having a negative modifier and being less likely to succeed in a roll. It doesn't sound fun to take away player agency at all

This. Now I wouldn't mind them using that info to give OOC hints to party members to use IC sometimes. After all I don't think any of my players have 20 int.

>literally roll up someone mentally disabled
>complain when they can't think too well
No good roleplaying experience points for you user!

More seriously though, I would have at least let you roll against your intelligence. You should at least have a CHANCE at success, even though it would be very slim.

This. Dumping stats has consequences.

"My character limits herself to damage control because doing "other thing" is not in her nature and is uncomfortable in doing so. It's not natural to them, so they usually avoid doing it."

I played on a NWN rp server and was banned because I refused to delete my half-orc who had 8 intellgence.
The GM argued that my character was hardly capable of forming a sentence, that he was practically braindead. I accepted their bullshit, and said I would rp that my character as an idiot, but was banned anyway.

8 isn't mentally disabled. It's below normal. There are just and many people from 80-100 IQ as there are 100-120-- which is to say, they're quite common and in the normal human range of ability. Millions of them voted for Hillary last year, and while not the smartest tools in the shed, they're not actually disabled.

>8 Int means mentally disabled
Only someone with < 8 Int would think that. 8 Int means the character is maybe a little slow, but by no means necessarily an idiot. Especially if the character has 10+ Wisdom.

>8 isn't mentally disabled. It's below normal
Cool thinly veiled /pol/ bait user, now reread what the actual numbers were and get back to us.

Yes. Why wouldn't you?
Otherwise they'll start making gatling guns on day one with the aid of google.

I find the more tactful way to handle it is to have he player roll for it whenever they're not playing their character whether the stats are above or below his behavior, the memes created by the group will usually make it fit.

Average IQ is 100, stdev = 15

Which means just over 2/3 of the population has an IQ between 85 and 115. 80 is below normal but not grossly, dysfunctionally so.

Insofar as IQ translates to D&D terms at all, it's a 1:10 ratio. A D&D IQ of 10 is average. Adventurers rolling their stats will average slightly higher because they're adventurers.

Not him, but I run it this way, too. I have them roll a check and then if they RP well might give them a bonus but otherwise the roll determines the reaction. A player might test STR and say "I lift the boulder". Well, that's what they INTEND to do, but the check determines their result. If they try to lift the boulder and fail, or try and persuade the duchess and fail, then the fact that the player is real strong or manipulative shouldn't matter.

You need to enforce this, otherwise players will dump stats and then use their natural abilities to make up for it. Similarly, just because someone is an idiot or uncharismatic or naive doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to play smart/persuasive characters, in which case the player needs some help from the DM to keep up with his character.

Precisely. This is just as retarded as those DMs who ignore Charisma and just "let you" convince them or whatever. I've actually seen people post on GiantITP forums who admit to running games like this.

It's literally no different than the following scenario
>My fighter kicks in the door [rolls d20] 19! With my +6 STR modifier, that's more than enough t-
>Oh really? How much do you squat?

>now reread what the actual numbers were and get back to us.

>>Sorry, you have 8 INT. Your character wouldn't be able to figure that out/know that

OK done. 8 INT. I stand by my remarks.

user, you need 3 int to learn and use human speech.
The value of numbers is inflated due to 3e's reliance on modifiers.

8 int is above metal retardation, to be mentally handicapped you need below a 75 iq

>I'm going to be obtuse and ignore what the person I responded to said
(You)

>8-11 is just an average int score
>DM and other players treat it like retardation/brain damage
why

Because people are stupid in general, 8 int is maybe a little slow on the uptake but not the "hur dur, me dumb no like words".

A lot of people are under the impression that 10 is the average for two valid reasons
1. In our modern, decimal minds 10 is just a number that makes sense
2. A score of 10 provides neither penalty nor bonus, a score of 8 provides a -2 penalty.

With those two in mind, it's easy to see a score of 8 as being below average. Even though supposedly the average is 8.

8 actually gives you -1 not -2

>Implying that other systems don't have a corresponding intelligence score.

GURPS's intelligence stat is literally called "IQ", for example.

I was under the impression it waa because commoners had 10 in all stats so people just used that as "average", at least in 5e D&D terms.

If you had 8 int, you'd understand how retarded what you wrote is

The only thing Intelligence does is affect intelligence-based spellcasting.

The only thing Wisdom does is affect wisdom-based spellcasting.

The only thing Charisma does is affect charisma-based spellcasting.

>saves
Depends on edition.

No you fucking moron. 3 int is still sapience and capable of speech. And even then there is nothing saying that this creature is speaking abnormally instead of just simply. A 6 int troll is still freely capable of telling you to pay the toll for his bridge. He's dumb enough to let the billygoat cross the bridge so his brothers will join him when he has no way of communicating to said brothers but the troll can still reason and will speak normally and act in his best interest.
7 and 8 aren't some kind of ape barely capable of speaking, it's the lady in the checkout line who isn't quite getting that she can't use multiple coupons on one item.

>Int is inherent IQ
>Not a combination of knowledge, education, cunning and literacy
By the 1st definition, the Village Idiot from the Beastiary should be a drooling vegetable at 40 IQ. But he's not, he's just illiterate, uneducated, slow and knows nothing. So he has 4 Int.

Anyone that argues that 8 Int = Caveman needs to remember that games are supposed to be fun and 8 Int is probably more along the lines of Don Quixote or just a somewhat slow guy.
Role-playing stats is stupid. My racist human paladin definitely won't be a great emissary to other races, but damn sure he'll resolve any issue with humans with words

I don't. Generally unintelligent characters can still come by a brilliant idea by a fluke. If the player frequently comes up with brilliant ideas, then I encourage them to roleplay collaborating with a smarter character to develop their novel idea using the smarter character's education.

>10 intelligence
+0 modifier on all intelligence-based checks
>9-8 intelligence
-1 modifier on all intelligence-based checks
>d20 system
It's a 5% decrease in effectiveness every 2 points. You retard.

>character with 8 str tries to do strong thing
"ok make a roll with -1 modifier"
>character with 10 int tries to do intelligent thing
"u cant"

nice

/thread

Yes, that's what I wrote in the post you responded to.

Lake Wobegon Syndrome. Nobody wants to think of someone being below average. So the assumption is that *me* and *my social circle* are all 100+. Two digit IQs should be about as common as three digit IQ's, but nobody wants to include anyone they know who isn't actually obviously disabled.

The result is that if your only examples of sub 100 IQs are people who are actually disabled, then that's the stereotype you create.

/thread
Anyone who tries to impose retarded int requirements obviously got bullied for being a fucking loser in school

And GURPS's IQ has a similar range and average. In this stat, GURPS and D&D are more or less equivalent.

How do I play a character with 20 INT if I’m dumb as a rock IRL?

Yeah, I meant that. It was a type. Still, my point stands. Due to 8 giving a penalty and 10 just giving +0, it's natural for many people to assume 10 is average.

>Anyone that argues that 8 Int = Caveman needs to remember that...

That cavemen may not have been as educated as you in abstract academic subjects (those not having been invented yet) but are every bit as intelligent as you are. They invented all that knowledge that you inherited, after all. Oh, and it's worth mentioning that paleoanthropologists have reason to believe that average human IQ has declined slightly since the hunter/gatherer ("caveman") era.

The same way you play any other character, by adding the relevant modifiers to the relevant rolls. Also, in the case of intelligence, you get bonus skill points, and if you're playing a wizard, you also get bonus spells and spell slots.

The DM gives you more hints and has you roll for stuff that a normal player would have figured out on his own.

Only if the DM wants to use such houserules.

Sociopaths can empathize, but it’s just detached. Like:
>See bad thing happen to someone
>“I don’t want that to happen to me”
>”I would want someone to comfort me if that happened to me, so I’ll comfort this guy”
It’s not instinctual—they have to think about it and choose their words for maximum effect. It goes through a “me filter”. They think about themself first