>DM won't let me an INT lower than 8
Not fair
>>47151583
You shouldn't self-insert.
>>47151583
Why won't he let you?
>>47151596
Not him, but I literally can't convincingly roleplay with an INT of >8.
It's too damn challenging.
My mom has to count the dice totals for me. That's bad enough as it is.
Your DM doesn't want to let you have an excuse to act random and retarded because he's sick of your bullcrap.
>>47151678
/thread
>>47151678
Wrong
>>47151678
>projecting
>>47152202
>>47152042
>neither of these posts made the poster count go up
Hi OP.
>>47151583
he probably thinks it'd be hard to roleplay someone smarter than you.
>>47151583
Because anything lower than an 8 is getting into mentally handicapped territory. You wouldn't be fit to go adventuring at all, as you'd be hard-pressed to figure out which end of a sword goes into the bad guy. And anything lower than a 6 means you are just barely smarter than a dog.
Also >>47151678
>>47152383
That doesn't make sense
>>47152427
>I don't allow role play in table top
Why are you here
>>47152625
Nice strawman.
I just don't want the rest of the group babysitting a literal retard. It's frustrating for everyone involved and doesn't open up any narrative opportunities that couldn't otherwise be achieved.
>>47152661
You know that's not true
>>47152427
That is blatantly wrong and you vastly misunderstand the scale and purpose of INT.
>>47152427
Doesn't understanding practical concepts like how sharp objects work technically fall under the domain of wisdom?
>>47153111
>>47153126
Why is it wrong? What roleplaying opportunities open up with 6 INT that you absolutely couldn't possibly do with 8? Also, keep in mind that a lot of adventurer-centric skills also work of INT.
>>47153177
You know what, I'll give you that one.
>>47151583
As a natural stat roll or as a by-product of increasing other stats by trading int?
>>47152427
INT is basically the capacity for study and application of academic knowledge, that's why it's tied to Wizards most strongly as they achieve their spellcasting abilities through years of study and practic.
WIS is the "street smarts" to INT's "book smarts", so to speak. The wise hermit on the mountain has a WIS of 20 but wouldn't have the slightest hint of an idea of how to help you fix your TV, because INT was his dump stat. Yet he can still provide countless life lssons and practical knowledge to help people in all walks of life.
Compare that to a 5 WIS, 20 INT librarian. Terrible common sense and practical knowledge but understands theories and maths like none other.
Neither the hermit nor librarian are idiots in any way, because INT, despite the name, does not cover the entire spectrum of human intelligence. You can have a INT of 6 and still play a smart, tactical thinker and methodical problem solver completely legitimately. Anyone who thinks they have to roleplay a clinical retard whenever they roll a low INT score, isn't actually roleplaying at that point.
>>47153308
This. If OP refuses to answer then this is obviously a troll thread.
>>47153316
Your argument is bullshit. Dogs have 2 INT and WIS 12. By your logic, that dog is just as smart as a person just because he has a decent WIS. Actually, by RAW, he has a bonus to profession checks just from his WIS. A dog can get himself a job, and be better than average at it.
Which isn't a far cry from reality actually.
>>47153364
What's wrong with lowering int to 6 to put two points in another stat
Duck my shift up
Poop caka
>>47151672
>My mom has to count the dice totals for me. That's bad enough as it is.
>literally pretending to be retarded
>>47154494
And yet, you replied.
>>47154524
Guess that makes me the real loser, doesn't it?
>>47151678
>not playing KRARG! the half-orc fighter battle master with 7 INT and 13 WIS
>>47154561
It's ok, bro. Have a pity (You).
>>47152428
It does.
It's possible for smart people to do dumb things on purpose, but the reverse is not true. The
>implication
is that, besides being a faggot, OP also has less than Int8 IRL. Get it, now?
HTH
>>47153316
Would tactics in combat and war fall under INT or WIS?
>>47154678
Considering how they're normally drilled into a soldier during basic, I'd consider them WIS-based.
>>47153529
It's been against the rules to lower any stat 9- since 1974 od&d. You have to roll under "average" natty, or reroll.
>>47154678
Knowledge skill, so int.
>>47154721
I think it depends on the tactics and situation.
The SWAT guys clearing a building were trained and drilled on proper building sweeps alongside standard police training. They're using WIS.
But the guys who first conceptualized those techniques and training were using INT with a little help from WIS.
Same works for soldiers. Grunts use WIS. Generals use WIS and INT.
>>47154786
Knowing how to breech, in and of itself, is usually relegated to WIS, but actually seeing the fortification and determining the tactics to actually breech, that's usually relegated to INT.
>>47153413
Because intelligence as we know it in the real world isn't ascribed to a stat.
That dog has 2 INT because it can learn tricks and commands and read human emotions through learning.
>>47154678
Tactics INT, but a lot of battlefield situations heavily fall under WIS as well, because Spot checks would be a huge deal in war, as well as tracking, etc.
>>47155771
And he has 12 WIS because he's just as smart as a human and can be a tactical genius if he wants, right?
Oh wait no, that's stupid and you're full of shit.
>>47155852
Not him, but I think a dog's high WIS would represent instinct and intuition.
Seems like a solid build because the low INT would represent limited ways its WIS would interlock with the physical situation it's perceiving.
Gotta remember that the stats are somewhat abstract, like how STR isn't just physical strength, but also athletism and skill with bladed weapons.
>>47154722
We don't roll stats
>>47155973
Explain. Point buy?
>>47156008
You know
>>47155959
>STR is skill with bladed weapons
u fukkin wot m8
>>47156897
Yeah, and DEX includes skill with ranged wpns. It's why hit rolls with bladed are done with STR instead of DEX, because STR implies that you're hitting not just with strength, but hitting with all you're blade expertise (pre-wpn expertise circa greyhawk 1976, of course).
>>47156577
That's kinda shit then. Even with that extra 1 point (8) below 9, using random gen rules is kinda a shitty thing to do to PC... you know, I'm sure if the other guy knew the stipulations, he'd have been more understanding of the situation.
>>47157441
I just want to play a dumb as in probably mentally disabled in some way character but don't want my stat int to be the same as the fighter or ranger or something
Yes I'm mixing fluff and stats together in dnd but I don't really know
Muh immersion
>>47155852
That's not what I was saying at all, actually.
>>47161606
No way
