D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

Guest 6801328 · Apr 18, 2016

Yardiff said:
The question was pretty straight forward but again you didn't answer. Was the question 'no interesting' enough to answer as you stated before to others (paraphrase here) " I didn't find your post 'or part there of' interesting enough answer".

Clearly I thought it was interesting enough to answer because I wrote four paragraphs on it. But perhaps I needed to be more explicit about the answer:

The thing you are describing cannot happen unless the player chooses to allow it to. So if the player wants to voluntarily change their narrative they're going to have to come up with an alternate explanation, such as (as I wrote) simply describing the cognitive impairment brought on by a blow to the head. Not in combat (and facing a table of hostile players who insist that you fix your narrative RIGHT NOW)? No problem: you fall down and hit your head on the table. I mean, seriously, it is not hard to make up new stuff to avoid paradox.

As I wrote several dozen pages ago, if you really are playing with a DM and/or other players who are hostile to the idea then you should probably pick another concept, out of courtesy. But the same could be said for how you choose to roleplay your alignment.

EDIT: Ok, I just read re-read your question to make sure I was answering it. To more directly answer your specific question: no, if her patron "decided"* to stop helping then of course her int would not become 20. That would altering mechanics as a result of the narrative, of course. Besides, Eloelle is a freakin' genius without needing no stinkin' 20 Int. That's the whole point of this thread.

*Even the phrasing of the question...if her patron "decided" to do something...is revealing. Like Max, you speak as if the characters in the game are independently sentient entities. Where would this story element come from? Who is deciding that the patron decides such a thing?

EDIT #2: "Hmmm....I haven't heard from my Patron in a while. He must be testing me. I'm going to keep the answer to this Riddle a secret just in case."

Guest 6801328 · Apr 18, 2016

Maxperson said:
In the vast majority of RPGs, D&D included, they are intended to be intertwined. That's not subjective. That's objective. 5e is in fact designed that way.

Perhaps I misread how you meant "supposed to be". Yes, mechanics and narrative are supposed to be related. I dispute, however, that there is a particular way they are supposed to be related.

Your narrative has altered Zone of Truth, though. Eloelle absolutely knows the answer to the riddle. Right or wrong, she knows the answer. She can refuse to answer under a Zone of Truth, but she can't lie about knowing.

I'm saying that if narration and mechanics are divorced from one another, the DM can literally narrate anything as an orc. Everything can be narrated as anything the DM can think of. There would be no need for any correlation at all.

I disagree with that assertion, though. The narration affects her answer. Her answer affects many tangible things in the game world. I don't know, an answer that is wrong, and an answer that is correct, will have three different effects on the game world. Those are tangible. They can result in anything from Eloelle being killed, to her being rewarded for her help.

I understand what you are saying, but in order for the patron to intervene like that, it has to polymorph the golem in some manner or do something else mechanical to it in order for it to appear to be an orc. The narrative is not intended to be divorced from mechanics like that. The golem should get a save to avoid the change. Heck, it should be immune if it's an iron golem. Barring house rules, mechanics matter.

I really have no idea how to respond at this point. It's like we're still on page 3 of this thread. The part I highlighted is just clearly...painfully...not actually true, or you wouldn't be responding like this.

Ovinomancer · Apr 18, 2016

Elfcrusher said:
Clearly I thought it was interesting enough to answer because I wrote four paragraphs on it. But perhaps I needed to be more explicit about the answer:

The thing you are describing cannot happen unless the player chooses to allow it to. So if the player wants to voluntarily change their narrative they're going to have to come up with an alternate explanation, such as (as I wrote) simply describing the cognitive impairment brought on by a blow to the head. Not in combat (and facing a table of hostile players who insist that you fix your narrative RIGHT NOW)? No problem: you fall down and hit your head on the table. I mean, seriously, it is not hard to make up new stuff to avoid paradox.

As I wrote several dozen pages ago, if you really are playing with a DM and/or other players who are hostile to the idea then you should probably pick another concept, out of courtesy. But the same could be said for how you choose to roleplay your alignment.

EDIT: Ok, I just read re-read your question to make sure I was answering it. To more directly answer your specific question: no, if her patron "decided"* to stop helping then of course her int would not become 20. That would altering mechanics as a result of the narrative, of course. Besides, Eloelle is a freakin' genius without needing no stinkin' 20 Int. That's the whole point of this thread.

*Even the phrasing of the question...if her patron "decided" to do something...is revealing. Like Max, you speak as if the characters in the game are independently sentient entities. Where would this story element come from? Who is deciding that the patron decides such a thing?

EDIT #2: "Hmmm....I haven't heard from my Patron in a while. He must be testing me. I'm going to keep the answer to this Riddle a secret just in case."

Just to be clear, your saying that no one but the player playing a warlock has narrative access to the warlock's patron?

Guest 6801328 · Apr 18, 2016

Ovinomancer said:
Just to be clear, your saying that no one but the player playing a warlock has narrative access to the warlock's patron?

Wasn't it extrapolating other people's statements and putting words in their mouths that got your panties in a knot a few pages ago?

But, no, that's not even remotely what I'm claiming. Literally anybody could have narrative access to the patron, including other players. The DM can even have mechanical access to the patron. However I would expect each of them not try to undermine the warlock, just like I would expect the warlock to not try to alter mechanics. That's just social contract.

Players of course can't use narration to change the game state for other players, which would include communication between the warlock and the player. You can have Eloelle's Patron whisper to you all you want; just don't try telling Eloelle what he whispers to her.

The DM, of course, has more leeway. But let's say he decides, out of the blue without any mechanical justification, to announce that Eloelle's Patron is no longer whispering to her. WTF? I think that's a case of the social contract being completely violated. There are ways to salvage the narrative, but really I'd have to ask myself why I was playing at that table.

If for some reason I wanted to stay in that game, maybe I'd respond, "Huh. Well somebody is whispering to me; I could have sworn it's my Patron. The mystery deepens! In the meantime Eloelle is convinced it's her Patron."

Does that answer your rhetorical question?

Guest 6801328 · Apr 18, 2016

In case the above point wasn't obvious, I'll quote myself:

Elfcrusher said:
If for some reason I wanted to stay in that game, maybe I'd respond, "Huh. Well somebody is whispering to me; I could have sworn it's my Patron. The mystery deepens! In the meantime Eloelle is convinced it's her Patron."

In other words, you can try to alter the narrative, but if the narrative is taking place in Eloelle's head any actual changes require her participation/approval. That's what I mean by "the thing you are describing cannot happen unless the player chooses to allow it to".

Umbran · Apr 18, 2016

Elfcrusher said:
Back the kiddie table! Maxperson will keep you company.

You know what? You've just condescended and snarked yourself out of the thread. Don't post in this discussion again.

Everyone, if you want to discussing, you will do so WITH RESPECT for each other, or not at all. I hope that's clear.

Yardiff · Apr 18, 2016

Heres why I dont think int increases (headband of intellect, tome of clearthought, etc) wont work/help.

The character concepts are that they are intellectual geniuses but a 'crutch' makes their intelligence a 5. Increases should not work since the 'crutch' will maintain the int 5.

Maxperson · Apr 18, 2016

Elfcrusher said:
I really have no idea how to respond at this point. It's like we're still on page 3 of this thread. The part I highlighted is just clearly...painfully...not actually true, or you wouldn't be responding like this.

You have said that the narrative can override mechanics as long as the result is the same. Your current example is no different. In it you had the patron arrive and use polymorph on an iron golem, overriding the mechanics that say it is immune, and then you had it auto polymorph without allowing it a save. Your narration broke mechanics. That's fine as a house rule, but it is not RAW.

Yardiff · Apr 18, 2016

What does the word/term 'genius' mean? I know it can be applied to many different things and be applied mistakenly or in a negative way but... what does it mean?

Maxperson · Apr 18, 2016

Yardiff said:
What does the word/term 'genius' mean? I know it can be applied to many different things and be applied mistakenly or in a negative way but... what does it mean?

For the vast majority of us, it means someone who is extraordinarily smart. That's also the only way I have ever seen it used in D&D when referring intelligence.

D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

Guest 6801328

Guest

Guest 6801328

Guest

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Guest 6801328

Guest

Guest 6801328

Guest

Umbran

Mod Squad

Yardiff

Adventurer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Yardiff

Adventurer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads