The Gaming Den

Personally, I hate stats.

Too many people on various boards seem to play by the "you have a CHA of 7 so you smell and are ugly and people hate you hurr hurr hurr and you can't even roll to get people to like you" even though you have a +30 to Diplomacy checks.

Seriously. People roleplay stats far more than they should. They seriously want to guy with a Int of 6 to talk like a baby or a moron when all it really means is that you have no head for facts and calculations. There really is not reason why it should stop you from playing a Bard or something who has massive ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledges or someone with a lot of cunning.

Well, if stats aren't there to help you roleplay, then they're just a distribution of random numbers that add to other abilities. At that point, it's a waste of paper.

K wrote:They seriously want to guy with a Int of 6 to talk like a baby or a moron when all it really means is that you have no head for facts and calculations. There really is not reason why it should stop you from playing a Bard or something who has massive ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledges or someone with a lot of cunning.

What's great about that is that a character with an Int of 3 is supposed to be playable. The value of 3 is supposed to be some amazing magical cut-off where you stop being an animal and gain true sentience.

Maj wrote:Well, if stats aren't there to help you roleplay, then they're just a distribution of random numbers that add to other abilities.

The problem is that no one can agree what the stats are supposed to mean from a roleplaying perspective, especially mental stats. The game doesn't help you figure it out, either. D&D describes Intelligence on a scale that compares Int scores to--you guessed it--other creatures in D&D!

So I know that the average human has an Int of 10 or 11, and 6 or 7 is typical for a troll, but that doesn't actually tell me how smart trolls are supposed to be, just that they're dimmer than humans. And the information that a great wyrm golden dragon has Int 32 is likewise useless. I've never met any of these creaturse, so what good does it do me to be told that a beholder is smarter than an invisible stalker, but less intelligent than the average kraken?

Archmage wrote:The problem is that no one can agree what the stats are supposed to mean from a roleplaying perspective, especially mental stats. The game doesn't help you figure it out, either. D&D describes Intelligence on a scale that compares Int scores to--you guessed it--other creatures in D&D!

Intelligence is one of those things that people have a surprisingly difficult time defining.

In Everway, I remember being really disappointed that it was described in terms of tool usage. It was a nice reference, but it was so one dimensional that I kept wondering what else the ability was supposed to be for.

Really, though, when it comes to abstract concepts, there's always going to be differing interpretations. This is only a major point when the players don't agree with the DM/Game and it's disruptive to game play.

My big issue with roleplaying games is when the numbers stop representing something and just are there to be impressive. At that point, you're playing Math for Minis, and I don't really like that game.

I'm sort of going for "attributes" being things that a character buys as dice pools related to their Form.

My takes on the mental stats, and breaking them down, are as follows:

Intelligence: Knowledge gained by study (reading, instruction by an instructor), problem solving, most elementary and high school mathematics. This is as much being able to read instructions as it is to add numbers or subtract them. Intelligence is used to "solve" problems. Int is low tier mental capability, and generally focused on in education since it's the easiest to achieve in a short span of time.

Examples of Intelligence:
Fix a broken item, build a thing, remember a fact, crunch some numbers, jimmy with a device to make it work the way you want it to.

Wisdom: Knowledge gained by experience, situational awareness, senior HS math: calculus, algebra & geometry. This is as much the ability to learn from experience, and learn before experience (foresight). This is used to "understand" problems. Realizing how your field of vision works, or that people have "tells" when their mind and mouth aren't in accord; being able to understand a fact (and why it is a fact) Fire is hot, but the why is not usually asked. Wisdom is mid-tier, the focus is "understanding" a problem. Training for wisdom is very difficult, taking time and potentially speeded up by careful

Examples of Wisdom:
Maintain/sustain enough paranoia to keep your entire sphere of form in view by switching from opposite sides in an alternating cycle; only expecting victory from attacking an opponent's weaknesses; knowing how to look for mental/verbal disconnects when talking with an other person; understanding action/reaction chains.



Charisma: Knowledge gained from the self, interpersonal/social awareness, needed to develop theoretical math (most "new" math has had to be invented by someone, and while many maths majors may seem unusual, the ones that have developed or solved mathematical problems in the last century and been interviewed live are actually fairly personable; the "math genius" has more than a minor amount of Charisma).

Charisma is high-tier, but the hardest to train. Making people realize that they are not someone else is actually really hard. Most people do not actually know that who they are, and who an other person is, is actually a big deal. Nor do they realize that when they do things, others won't know what they are actually saying or talking about.

The charisma stat is what you use to have your PCs tell NPCs what the players want them to tell the NPCs (skills represent training; so the Cha 7, +30 to Diplomacy character is a crude, rude, mumbling clod; but they say things that convince you to hand them what they're asking for, be it your offspring or a suit of armour, or a parcel of land). While a player may be very eloquent, a low Cha PC is going to stutter, use poor oration, confuse their audience, or misspeak, in their conversations with NPCs.

Charisma deals with problems by "knowing" a problem.

Uses of Charisma: Lie to an other person. Able to stand in front of an audience and perform (oration, song, dance, theatre, etc.). Act like an individual. Realize that the "problems" in question are trivial and are answered by other questions.

[note: just because you don't have a penalty to charisma, doesn't mean you don't have a penalty to your charisma checks]

Of course, those are my interpretations

Int is books and school
Wis is experience and foresight
Cha is being able to tell you are not a wooden box

Archmage wrote: So I know that the average human has an Int of 10 or 11, and 6 or 7 is typical for a troll, but that doesn't actually tell me how smart trolls are supposed to be, just that they're dimmer than humans. And the information that a great wyrm golden dragon has Int 32 is likewise useless. I've never met any of these creaturse, so what good does it do me to be told that a beholder is smarter than an invisible stalker, but less intelligent than the average kraken?

We generally used to play that 1 point of intelligence roughly equals 10 IQ points as a yardstick.

So yes, playing the dipsh*t with the intelligence of 3 is possible, but you're playing as a severely brain-damaged individual. Then again, a STR of 3 is roughly the strength of a small child, and a CON of 3 is roughly the equivalent of a hemophiliac. Wisdom is the hard one to quantify. I've always said that wisdom is real world, common sense experience sh*t. An intelligent person could tell you that it was ecologically sound to perform an action, but a wise person could tell you why it was a good thing, in a way you could relate to. But that's far more nebulous than the other stats.

Dictionary.com lists one of the main definitions of Wisdom as: "knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action". Therefore, I guess you could describe wisdom as a character's morality & experience, along with the judgment to act upon those things. Perhaps you could also define it as the strength of one's convictions. I only include experience in this because otherwise there's no f*cking reason to use will for a save vs illusions and other magical effects.

We generally used to play that 1 point of intelligence roughly equals 10 IQ points as a yardstick.

So yes, playing the dipsh*t with the intelligence of 3 is possible

Any kind of Int-to-IQ is useless when you apparently have no idea what a given IQ looks like. With IQ 55-70 you may or may not be able to live on your own without supervision. For an IQ 30 the most difficult skills you can get are along the lines of "potty training" and "basic speaking English".

So no, Int 3 would be somewhere around IQ 60-70 if it's the lowest playable intelligence.

Yeah, no one can explain what the fuck attributes like Charisma or Wisdom even are. No one can agree on what numbers for things like Intelligence or Constitution correspond to. And while hard numbers are available for Strength, that's still a bad thing because characters in stories don't work like that.

The D&D attributes are bad. They don't correspond to things that are meaningful or good. There is value in having characters have little numeric values that make them different from other characters - but there is no value at all in labeling them crap like "Wisdom" that sounds like it conveys real world information but actually doesn't.

-Username17

TheFlatline wrote: Dictionary.com lists one of the main definitions of Wisdom as: "knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action". Therefore, I guess you could describe wisdom as a character's morality & experience, along with the judgment to act upon those things. Perhaps you could also define it as the strength of one's convictions. I only include experience in this because otherwise there's no f*cking reason to use will for a save vs illusions and other magical effects.

Intelligence is having knowledge. Wisdom is using that knowledge well. Charisma is will power.

Boom. Done. Frank, stop whining. Half of your post is false and makes no sense.

Saxony wrote:

TheFlatline wrote: Dictionary.com lists one of the main definitions of Wisdom as: "knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action". Therefore, I guess you could describe wisdom as a character's morality & experience, along with the judgment to act upon those things. Perhaps you could also define it as the strength of one's convictions. I only include experience in this because otherwise there's no f*cking reason to use will for a save vs illusions and other magical effects.

Intelligence is having knowledge. Wisdom is using that knowledge well. Charisma is will power.

Boom. Done. Frank, stop whining. Half of your post is false and makes no sense.

Is it knowledge of logic, and how fallacies and inferences work that is intelligence? Or is it wisdom, because it's knowledge about how to use knowledge well?

What the fuck is willpower? Is it knowledge of what is true, and thus rejecting what is false? Or is it applying what you know to defeat arguments? Or is it just being stubborn even when you are wrong, in which case, high Charisma is a bad thing, because it makes you objectively stupider?

Wisdom and Charisma only even make sense under stupid dualistic assumptions about how the mind works. And since those are objectively false, Wisdom and Charisma, the way real brains work, are identical to knowledge, since they are all the same brain working in the same way.

Saxony wrote:
Intelligence is having knowledge. Wisdom is using that knowledge well. Charisma is will power.

Except... that's totally not true.

Charisma obviously isn't "will power" because you use Wisdom for "Willpower Saves". Wisdom is not about "using knowledge well" because there are no required Wisdom checks to use any of your knowledge skills or knowledge-based powers. Intelligence clearly isn't having knowledge, because having knowledge is a function of having spent skill points on Knowledges, which is irrespective of what your intelligence actually is. Not only does a Rogue with an Int of 8 have more total skill points than a Wizard with an Int of 18, but if he spends 6 ranks into Knowledge Dungeoneering, he will straight up have more knowledge on that subject.

Your shitty apologetics are, as expected, shitty. Looking up dictionary definitions for words tells you fuck all about what they mean in a game.

-Username17

Saxony wrote:Wisdom is using that knowledge well.

That's a definition for "wisdom". A definition for "Wisdom" would be something like "slightly better eyesight and hearing, plus possible favour with one god, plus slightly increased ability to withstand certain types of magic", otherwise known as "What The Fuck!?".

EDIT: ninja'ed by Frank

Ignoring the Profession skill (which makes even less sense than the Crafting rules); awareness, spellcasting through faith (spiritual empathy?), and keeping the mind sacrosanct are the only things Wisdom does. None of these represent "using that knowledge well" and in fact treads on Charisma's "willpower" schtick.

Intelligence doesn't truly cover knowledge but the ability to learn anything, while also synergizing with learning facts (the Knowledge skills). Those with low Int are inherently less able to do anything. Those who would be awesome at reading shouldn't have an inherent advantage at learning how to climb a tree, yet they do, which makes Int the "having knowledge" trait suspect at best.

In fact, a high intelligence/low strength barbarian would give the impression of being very physically fit and capable individual...until it was time to fight or lift a rock.

EDIT: Yup, ninja'd by Frank too.

I would love it if the laws of nature were changed somehow such that when people came out with their half-assed or yeah, even quarter-assed justifications of alignment or mental stat assignments, that I would then be permitted to punch them in the mouth right through the internet. I seriously don't need to receive some sophomoric tirade about how Chaos is like "not following rules, man." or how Charisma is like "personality force" or some shit like that. None of that shit makes any sense, and none of it can make any sense. Because even if they weren't completely contradictory and overlapping as defined, they are still based on theories about the way the world work that aren't true and don't even make sense.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

Saxony wrote:
Intelligence is having knowledge. Wisdom is using that knowledge well. Charisma is will power.

Except... that's totally not true.

Charisma obviously isn't "will power" because you use Wisdom for "Willpower Saves". Wisdom is not about "using knowledge well" because there are no required Wisdom checks to use any of your knowledge skills or knowledge-based powers. Intelligence clearly isn't having knowledge, because having knowledge is a function of having spent skill points on Knowledges, which is irrespective of what your intelligence actually is. Not only does a Rogue with an Int of 8 have more total skill points than a Wizard with an Int of 18, but if he spends 6 ranks into Knowledge Dungeoneering, he will straight up have more knowledge on that subject.

Your shitty apologetics are, as expected, shitty. Looking up dictionary definitions for words tells you fuck all about what they mean in a game.

-Username17

I wasn't defending DnD 3.5e.

I was pointing out those words have real world definitions. There's been an excusable confusion involving phrases with multiple meanings.

If you think a well designed, intuitive game is impossible because DnD got it wrong, you are an idiot. You probably don't think that since you use big words, but I'll cover all my bases.

Saxony wrote: I was pointing out those words have real world definitions.

Frank specifically spelled Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma with capital letters so that an intelligent person wouldn't confuse them with the words wisdom, intelligence and charisma.

I guarantee you that capital-C Charisma isn't in your dictionary, unless you're looking at the Dictionary of Trailer Park Baby Names.

Saxony wrote: I wasn't defending DnD 3.5e.

I was pointing out those words have real world definitions. There's been an excusable confusion involving phrases with multiple meanings.

If you think a well designed, intuitive game is impossible because DnD got it wrong, you are an idiot. You probably don't think that since you use big words, but I'll cover all my bases.

Ah, so you're being a completely different kind of jackass than the one I was thinking about, which in turn means that Kaelik was right on the money and you should have been responding to how he ripped your argument in half so hard he had to pee on it to put out the fire. Why you chose to direct your response to me, when I was merely one of three different people who got on your ass over the fact that the argument you appeared to be making was a burrito filled with failure and wrapped in wrongness is to this date a mystery.

So your actual argument is that those three sentences that you pulled right out of your ass could be the foundation of an entirely different stat assignment for an entirely different game that used the D&D mental stat names for no better reason than to spread confusion and doubt by leaving people with forty years of deceptively useless experience. That's... a completely absurd life goal, but now that I know that you have it I can more accurately diagnose your personal failings.

Your three categories are, as Kaelik mentioned, inane. They are apparently based on a theory of mind that is demonstrably false. But here goes:

Knowledge isn't actually different from knowing how to use knowledge, because anything you can't understand isn't something you actually know. That's pretty much indisputable I should think. So your distinguishment between Intelligence and Wisdom is a priori absurd. At any point of actual interaction with the world, your ability to use knowledge is 100% of what actually matters, meaning that you've relegated Intelligence to a mere hidden variable that doesn't really do anything.

As for Willpower being Charisma, I doubt you can even explain what Willpower is. Simply announcing that one word you can't describe now has meaning identity with another word you can't describe means nothing and gets us nowhere.

-Username17

The problem is, Saxony, that you're an uncharismatic, foolish, idiot.

Charisma is based on one fundamental thing: You are not a wooden box, moreover, you know that you are not a wooden box. Said wooden box not only doesn't know it is a wooden box, but it also does not know it is not anything else.

Charisma is the ability to distinguish yourself, from others. That's the core of it.

The D&D definition is actually more clear, and more accurate than most dictionaries when it comes to defining "charisma".

The more capable of differentiating yourself from other objects, or creatures, the easier it is to interact with them. Speak with them, convince them of your arguments, lie to them facilely, or put on a performance.

The questions Saxony are these:

How often have you:

-lied to an other person, convincingly
-performed in front of an audience; preferably, as the only person being observed
-convinced someone of a point, even if they were reticent about said point beforehand

Explain to me how in each of those "will power" made sense when you were performing said actions; and where "knowing the difference between yourself and others" did not make any sense at all.



Wisdom is the ability to perceive your environment in any fashion. The ties with Will saves are tenuous at best. Unless you consider this, a Will save succeeds more often when the target realizes they are having their mind assaulted. Most will saves assume that they target is actually not aware of what is going on, unless they make their save, or suddenly have to accept the consequences of failing their save.*

Intelligence is the ability to think, learn, or remember. I refuse to get into the semantics of IQ and Int scores. IQ scores CHANGE as time passes. An IQ of 100 today, would be equivalent to a 120 or more 50 years ago; this is because the goalposts change when it comes to IQ tests, I'm not even making this shit up. Also, IQ's of "180" are.... seriously impossible under most IQ tests for adults; getting a "16" is seriously very difficult.

The PHB is less than useless at defining attributes I find.

While the DMG/MM use the following: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilit ... nabilities


*: This actually gives me an idea on how to rework saves into Endure, Avoid and Realize. Fort gets the boot, as does Will; instead they are replaced with saves against obvious, and subtle, threats. Making the fit for Wisdom in the "Realize" saving throw much more reasonable. Your Wisdom realizes that the attack is mental and immaterial; and panicking or trying to resist physically will result in failure.

Failed Endurance or Realization saves mean that your character isn't able to either assess the threat properly and it gets past your defenses, or isn't capable to resisting the threat at all.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Saxony wrote: I wasn't defending DnD 3.5e.

I was pointing out those words have real world definitions. There's been an excusable confusion involving phrases with multiple meanings.

If you think a well designed, intuitive game is impossible because DnD got it wrong, you are an idiot. You probably don't think that since you use big words, but I'll cover all my bases.

Ah, so you're being a completely different kind of jackass than the one I was thinking about, which in turn means that Kaelik was right on the money and you should have been responding to how he ripped your argument in half so hard he had to pee on it to put out the fire. Why you chose to direct your response to me, when I was merely one of three different people who got on your ass over the fact that the argument you appeared to be making was a burrito filled with failure and wrapped in wrongness is to this date a mystery.

So your actual argument is that those three sentences that you pulled right out of your ass could be the foundation of an entirely different stat assignment for an entirely different game that used the D&D mental stat names for no better reason than to spread confusion and doubt by leaving people with forty years of deceptively useless experience. That's... a completely absurd life goal, but now that I know that you have it I can more accurately diagnose your personal failings.

Your three categories are, as Kaelik mentioned, inane. They are apparently based on a theory of mind that is demonstrably false. But here goes:

Knowledge isn't actually different from knowing how to use knowledge, because anything you can't understand isn't something you actually know. That's pretty much indisputable I should think. So your distinguishment between Intelligence and Wisdom is a priori absurd. At any point of actual interaction with the world, your ability to use knowledge is 100% of what actually matters, meaning that you've relegated Intelligence to a mere hidden variable that doesn't really do anything.

As for Willpower being Charisma, I doubt you can even explain what Willpower is. Simply announcing that one word you can't describe now has meaning identity with another word you can't describe means nothing and gets us nowhere.

-Username17

Here's what I was reacting to:

FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, no one can explain what the fuck attributes like Charisma or Wisdom even are. No one can agree on what numbers for things like Intelligence or Constitution correspond to. And while hard numbers are available for Strength, that's still a bad thing because characters in stories don't work like that.

The D&D attributes are bad. They don't correspond to things that are meaningful or good. There is value in having characters have little numeric values that make them different from other characters - but there is no value at all in labeling them crap like "Wisdom" that sounds like it conveys real world information but actually doesn't.

-Username17

That part made no sense. Game-related objects' names corresponding to their real world counterparts eases learning. If something is called "Wisdom" and acts like the real world "Wisdom", the game's rules are easier to remember than a game with something called "Xel-crag-muffer" and acting like real world "Strength". Ease of learning is valuable.

And I still thought you were talking about real world charisma, so when you said "No one can define these words!" I disagreed (let me address defining the real world words "Intelligence", "Wisdom", and "Charisma" below). Thus me saying half of your post made no sense and was false since you had two paragraphs and I didn't like two of their sentences.

DnD 3.5's abilities called "Int", "Wis", and "Cha" are not easily definable. It's a mess. Like someone else said, how in the fuck does seeing better and resisting some forms of magical attacks relate? There might be a sense to the madness, but I don't see it.

My previous definitions for the real world words "Intelligence, "Wisdom", and "Charisma" were terse and not informational. I was mistaken. I am interested in proving my own intellectual prowess, so I'll try to fully explain my previous definitions.

Intelligence:
Previous definition: Having knowledge.
Expanded definition: Memorizing definitions and recalling known definitions when asked for missing pieces of definitions. Example: Memorizing "Water is H2O" and answering "H2O" when asked "What is Water?"

Wisdom:
Previous definition: Using that knowledge well.
Expanded definition: Creating new complex definitions with old simpler definitions when needed. Example: Figuring out what new math is needed to prove Kepler's Laws imply the gravitational force between two objects is proportional to the inverse square of their separation.

Charima:
Previous definition: Will power.
Expanded definition: Mental fortitude and pressure. Example: Two people are verbally fighting. The less charismatic one tries to intimidate the other and fails. The more charismatic one intimidates the other and wins the fight without using a logical argument.

Having high charisma when one is wrong is bad, and having high charisma when one is right is good. A definition's validity is not affected by its painful or pleasing implications.

Perhaps confusion has been eroded. Now I'll respond to your post more leisurely.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Saxony wrote: I wasn't defending DnD 3.5e.

I was pointing out those words have real world definitions. There's been an excusable confusion involving phrases with multiple meanings.

If you think a well designed, intuitive game is impossible because DnD got it wrong, you are an idiot. You probably don't think that since you use big words, but I'll cover all my bases.

Ah, so you're being a completely different kind of jackass than the one I was thinking about, which in turn means that Kaelik was right on the money and you should have been responding to how he ripped your argument in half so hard he had to pee on it to put out the fire. Why you chose to direct your response to me, when I was merely one of three different people who got on your ass over the fact that the argument you appeared to be making was a burrito filled with failure and wrapped in wrongness is to this date a mystery.

So your actual argument is that those three sentences that you pulled right out of your ass could be the foundation of an entirely different stat assignment for an entirely different game that used the D&D mental stat names for no better reason than to spread confusion and doubt by leaving people with forty years of deceptively useless experience. That's... a completely absurd life goal, but now that I know that you have it I can more accurately diagnose your personal failings.

Your three categories are, as Kaelik mentioned, inane. They are apparently based on a theory of mind that is demonstrably false. But here goes:

Knowledge isn't actually different from knowing how to use knowledge, because anything you can't understand isn't something you actually know. That's pretty much indisputable I should think. So your distinguishment between Intelligence and Wisdom is a priori absurd. At any point of actual interaction with the world, your ability to use knowledge is 100% of what actually matters, meaning that you've relegated Intelligence to a mere hidden variable that doesn't really do anything.

As for Willpower being Charisma, I doubt you can even explain what Willpower is. Simply announcing that one word you can't describe now has meaning identity with another word you can't describe means nothing and gets us nowhere.

-Username17

Finding the logical arguments inside your hate filled request for perceived intellectual superiority is difficult.

I never said my three definitions could be the foundation of anything. As above, I was merely attempting to prove those three real world words could be given a definition (I'll address the issues of giving them definitions below). You're very good at putting words in my mouth when you get confused and need an inferior argument to destroy. Bravo.

Side note: Getting confused is not necessarily a mark against the person confused. In this case, any blame for confusion rests solely on my shoulders.

Having knowledge and using knowledge... very vague definitions. I apologize. My expanded definitions are above. Hopefully you are convinced I have not abandoned my previous definitions and was instead trying to be a snarky ass hole and quip snobby one liners (more likely on these boards, right?). Your interpretation of my malleable previous definitions was indeed very easy to destroy. But it wasn't what I meant. Again, I apologize for being vague. Would you like to respond to my expanded definitions?

Ah, stating I cannot describe both sides of a definition. Very funny. Since "Charisma" is the mystery word I am trying to define, telling me I can't describe it when I am attempting to describe it via definition just isn't fair. Also, I described Will Power above. Would you like to respond to that expanded definition?

Judging__Eagle wrote:The problem is, Saxony, that you're an uncharismatic, foolish, idiot.

...

Other stuff which is probably right.

Yo, I got confused. I wasn't attempting to define DnD 3.5e abilities. That might be impossible. I can't make any sense of them.

I need to quip more more to make up for your one liner. That was actually hurtful.

Saxony wrote:I never said my three definitions could be the foundation of anything. As above, I was merely attempting to prove those three real world words could be given a definition (I'll address the issues of giving them definitions below).

Ah. So you were wasting everyone's time and calling me out over nothing at all. Thanks for playing.

So to get this straight, you were complaining that I said those words had "real world meaning" and that this was somehow relevant to anything at all, despite the fact that the real world meanings those words actually have are numerous and contradictory, and the specific meanings you called attention to weren't even in the real world dictionary definitions of those terms and would be completely fucking useless for a game system to attempt to emulate anyway.

So kindly take your challenge, and stuff it up your ass.

-Username17

So we are still back to my deconstruction of your shitty definitions.

No one goes around talking about how Wise Einstein was for figuring out relativity or quantum effects. We praise him for being intelligent.

In fact, "taking lots of little things you already know, and applying them well to come up with new stuff" is the primary use of the word intelligent.

We say someone is "Wise" when they say stupid shit that isn't true but sounds cool, or take something that is true in one situation and generalize it to things that it doesn't actually apply to.

We call people who are good at rote memorization or have a lot of knowledge: Good at rote memorization or knowledgeable.

So once again, your definitions of Wisdom and Intelligence are wrong and stupid and backward.

As for Cha. WTF? Intimidation? Seriously? When I am intimidated by someone, it's not because I have a weaker for charisma or mental fortitude, it's because I genuinely believe that they are willing and capable of hurting me if I don't. Mike Tyson doesn't have higher Charisma than me. A Gun is not a +20 circumstance bonus to Charisma.

Charisma is the ability to be fucking likable. To present an impression such that people like you when they meet you, and are less likely to judge you harshly. This can be "instinctual" or it can be a practiced application of knowledge. I know that people respond better when I smile at them instead of frowning, thus, I smile at people. That's me having knowledge, applying it well to convince people of things. Because all these definitions are arbitrary.

Saxony wrote:

Judging__Eagle wrote:The problem is, Saxony, that you're an uncharismatic, foolish, idiot.

...

Other stuff which is probably right.

Yo, I got confused. I wasn't attempting to define DnD 3.5e abilities. That might be impossible. I can't make any sense of them.

I need to quip more more to make up for your one liner. That was actually hurtful.

What's more hilarious is that you don't even get what was written, and then got hurt by it.

I'm saying that your definitions of whatever you said are so wrong that you obviously have no idea what any of them are. You're too stupid to be able to describe intelligence, too foolish to describe wisdom, and too impersonal to describe charisma.

Changing mental stats to.....


Reasoning

Awareness

Individuality

would seriously be a step in the right direction. Words that specifically define what the attributes are.

Fuck, strength is badly done on so many levels that it reflects just how little the stupid fucking wargamers who first came up with their system know about actual physical training.

Dexterity, flexiblity, stretchiness, goes up with natural muscle growth. Having them on seperate tracks is incredibly stupid.

Vitality [melee damage, HP modifier, Endurance Saves stat; Physique related]

Response [ranged attack, AC bonus, Avoidance Save stat; "reaction" physical skills; like Balance]

Form [melee attack, "planned" physical skills: tumble, jump ]

would seriously better replace Str Dex Con. And a game where joining damage and HP and putting to-hit on it's own is probably a good idea.

edite: My mind keeps interrupting itself with new tracks, or leap frogs to other parts of the same track.

This thread is pretty awesome now.

People can't even agree what it means to be "intelligent" in real life. The word is so loaded with cultural biases and other preconceptions that it's amazing. The idea that you can or should somehow correlate D&D stats with the results of IQ tests is fantastic.

We can't put the mental capabilities of real people on any sort of objective scale. Seriously. Nobody knows how to do that in a way that isn't full of holes. It may not even be possible. So the idea that your Int score is good for doing anything other than determining your numerical modifier to intelligence-based skills is absurd, because that number provides you with absolutely zero objective information about what a character is actually like.

I find it insulting to animals that even the smartest gorilla has an INT of 2.
"But they don't know any language" some reason, but fuck that shit, they do. It's just not words.
Arm positions, visual thinking, dance, birdsong, rudimentary tool using, it's all possible for creatures only a little less capable than us humans but far more harmonious with their environment.

I mean, if skyscrapers and rocket ships are emblems of our genius (average 10-11 INT by game terms) then why are we bleeding fossil fuels and complex chemicals into the same water supply we drink out of? Shitting where we eat... that's barely something mollusks and insects do.

A simple INT damage/drain attack can shut down animals like it was nothing. A dire creature drops to unconsciousness due to its INT of 1-2 with a single attack.
That's not right.

Rather, like a Barbarian 1 that is described as "Illiterate", nonsapient beings should have an ability (or anti-ability) that says "This creature can't anticipate the future, use written language, or complete abstract thought," and yet the INT score would be roughly the same as any humanoid.
Hell, you could have animalistic dragons with INT of over 20 and they don't know a single word of Common or plan farther than an hour in advance, but they get by.