D&D 5E Making Intelligence Less of a Dump Stat

1. Removed investigation as a skill. Too much overlap with perception.

2. Add int to dex as init roll.

3. Extra languages per int bonus. Also less languages per int penalty. Must know atleast racial language.

4. Extra tool or weapon proficiency per int bonus(max 3). Also less per int penalty.

5. Extra skill proficiency per int bonus(max 3). Also less per int penalty.

77IM said:

Note that in the new downtime rules in Xanathar's, learning a new language or tool proficiency takes 10 weeks, -1 week for every point of Intelligence bonus. So that's something.

Click to expand...

You could go with Literacy being an uncommon trait, and say characters require Int 13+ to be able to read. Though, if you do that, I would make Literacy a “language” that can be learned from Race or Background.

CleverNickName said:

I'd like to change that with a house rule, so that tanking Intelligence is at least as unpleasant as tanking Dex or Wis.

Click to expand...

Written like that, it's just not possible

Constitution, Dexterity and Wisdom are the "reactive" or "passive" abilities. Nobody cannot choose to avoid using them, as they affect defense i.e. HP, AC and Perception. So there is not only an incentive to have high scores here, but also clearly to avoid low scores.

To make Intelligence, Strength and Charisma more on par with the other three, you'd have to make all of them affect defensive/passive/reactive abilities more, anything that you cannot choose not to use. We all know that there are Int/Str/Cha saving throws (or reactive ability checks vs spells) but also that they aren't nearly as frequent as Con/Dex/Wis saves.

This would be a BIG change, but you could consider make all illusion spells require Intelligence saves rather than Wisdom, and all paralysis/petrification (or whatever else makes the target impeded in its movement) spells and effects require a Strength save.

Or even a bigger change, you could consider making Intelligence affect AC or Initiative or Perception, make Strength affect HP, and make Charisma affect Initiative or Perception.

CleverNickName said:

Idea 1: Bonus Proficiencies

Click to expand...

It's ok, but IMHO the PCs already have more proficiencies than it's really needed, so the effective boost isn't much.

Now, if you were limited to a number of skill proficiencies based on Intelligence, so that for example your Int modifier would increase/lower your total number of skills proficiencies (total = class + race + background), now that would probably make players think twice before dumping Int.

CleverNickName said:

Idea 2: Magic Item Attunement

Click to expand...

This is generally a fair idea, but it's always subject to the campaign type (grim'n'gritty vs monty haul), and at low levels it can be very often irrelevant.

[MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] Flex really hard at the basilisk? I'm in!

I remember there was a spell saving throw home brew floating around here that assigned different saves for a variety of spells. I think the general idea was to give more equal distribution to the ability scores, and I recall Hold Person as one example of a paralysis spell switched to Strength saves. Pretty sure they kept petrification effects Constitution based, though. Wish I could find it now, but it was posted years ago.

Spohedus said:

We do the following things at our table to deal with this and have been pleased with the results.

- Initiative bonus is the higher of DEX or INT.
- At character creation, you get a bonus number of languages, skills, or tools equal to your INT score, BUT they must be selected from your class and background options.
- We put a bit more oomph behind knowledge skills and are quicker to grant disadvantage on rolls for characters who have no background in the subject or knowledge skill.

I'll just echo that with standard array and point buy, leaving it as-is isn't a balance issue.

Click to expand...

Many people disagree that it isn't an issue (well, maybe it's more of a concept/simulation issue than a balance issue). The simple truth is that, unless you are a wizard, Intelligence is by far the least attractive attribute mechanically speaking because it has no use in combat and is highly situational outside of combat unless your DM goes out of their way to over-emphasize it.

There should be a reason to not dump any of the 6 attributes, with choices players make being subjective and offering various tradeoffs. Int simply fails in that department in 5e, and ends up being a dump stat disproportionately compared with others, which is why this topic comes up so regularly on the boards.

Idea 3: Give monsters abilities that key off of PC intelligence (or lack thereof).

Preparedness
prerequisite: intelligence score 15 or higher.

When a PC encounters a monster with this trait, the DM asks for an intelligence check. If the monster's check exceeds the PC's, the monster knows the PC's class(es), spells prepared at the end of the PC's last long rest, and whether the PC has any magical items. If the monster's check exceeds the PC's by five or more, the monster can use a reaction to do one of the following to the PC any time in the next minute:

1) cast counterspell
2) cast heat metal on a magic item (regardless of whether the item was made of metal) for one round
3) impose disadvantage on a weapon attack.

The monster can use this ability on each PC that fails the check, but it needs to complete a long or short rest before it can target a PC a second time.

77IM said:

Note that in the new downtime rules in Xanathar's, learning a new language or tool proficiency takes 10 weeks, -1 week for every point of Intelligence bonus. So that's something.

Click to expand...

I went with something similar before the final Xanathar's Guide to Everything revisited Downtime rules were published. What I did was that every +1 to INT was an additional day "learned" for every physical day. so a +1 would make every downtime day of learning count as 2 days, effectively halving downtime, while a +5 would reduce it to 1/6.

I'm in the camp to say: Don't make any rule changes, but worry about it because the current rules encourage you to pay heed to ability scores.

Each stat has a significance. A low intelligence should be limiting for a PC, and a low intelligence across a party should be limiting for the party.

They just don't know how to do things. There are a number of skills people use to do things that players mistake for knowledge skills. Healing and survival are common examples. These skills are aimed at your ability to do something, not your knowledge surrounding the topics they cover. Don't tell players knowledge when they try to use these skills - only give them results of processes. They have to use other skills to get knowledge.

For example: Tracking. If a low intelligence PC is tracking an enemy, I'll give them different information than I'd give a high intelligence PC. I'd tell the low intelligence PC that there are big tracks. The high intelligence PC would learn the shape of the foot that made the tracks - as well as whether there was a tail involved, etc... I'll tell the low intelligence PC that the tracks were made recently. I'll tell the high intelligence PC that the tracks were made recently - certainly before that last bit of rain. Give the players with more intelligence more knowledge when they use these skills.

The low intelligence PCs just don't know who the important people/facts are and don't retain information. To simulate this - just don't give them the information in the first place. Even if they have a high perception, they don't know what to do with the information they perceive and won't recall it later - so you shouldn't tell the player too much about the details.

For example, a high wisdom and high perception, but low intelligence character may receive descriptions like these:

* The wall is covered by with a tapestry depicting people fighting. There are lots of different people fighting and they cover a few different races. The depiction of the carnage is beautifully crafted, but some of the gore is so excessive... it makes you sad.

The significance of the tapestry is unknown. That PC would not walk away knowing much about the tapestry, but might think there was some significance.

However, a high intelligence, but low wisdom/perception PC might get the following description:

* There is a tapestry on the wall depicting the Battle of Kas-dal. That battle took place nearly 3000 years ago in a valley nearby. Allied armies of elves, dwarves and human of the region had come together to drive back an orcish invasion, but when they encountered the orcs they discovered that a vast army of demons was supporting the orc clans. The allied nations had to decide whether to retreat and regroup, or stand their ground. They fled. However, the slow moving dwarves were not able to outrun the orcs and had to turn and face the overwhelming odds. Rather than fight alongside them, the elves and humans left the dwarves to slow down the enemy, making their escape at the cost of the dwarven lives. They reunited with additional troops from all three nations, as well as a brigade of Celestials, and returned to destroy the orcs and demons. However, the dwarves of the region thought that the elves and humans that fled had thrown away the lives of their clansmen, and a great rift grew between the races. Many scholars say that the dwarven slaughter was the most significant factor in several wars and millennia of racial strife.

Notice something about that description? It isn't a description of what is on the tapestry. It is a description of the depicted battle. A high intelligence person lacking in perception might recognize something but fail to take in the details, filling in the gaps with their knowledge rather than looking to what they are observing to see what can be gleaned from it.

You can tailor the information you give PCs to their attributes to reflect their attributes and make it a fun experience.

Rather than dump Investigation as a skill... give it a subset of what they currently use Perception for:

Perception is to find hidden creatures... things that move around and leave tracks / scent / movement.
Investigation is to find hidden inanimate objects... things like secret doors and traps.

You do that and immediately you nerf Perception like it really needs to be, and Intelligence now jumps up for those PCs that are going to be searching for stuff. If you are a Rogue you absolutely can't dump Intelligence, not if you want to search for traps.

Option 2: Use the Variant Rule that does not assign specific ability scores to specific skills. When a check needs to be made, you decide which ability score applies and then the player can offer up a proficiency they might have that could possibly apply. So you thus can end up with things like INT (Perception) or INT (Survival) or INT (Persuasion) etc.

This also thus can be used to simulate other kinds of "skills" without needing to add them to the skill list. Combat Tactics? That's an INT (Insight) check as the PC tries to glean what they can from what they know of the opposing side's thought processes and then develop strategies to counter them. Engineering questions? That's INT (Tinkering Tools) or INT (Thieve's Tools) depending on the kind of engineering problems you come across. Like you've found the trap... but how does it work so that you can disarm it? INT (Thieve's Tools). Then you follow it up with a DEX (Thieve's Tools) check to disarm it, with bonuses or penalties depending on the INT check.


Finnaly, the Extreme option: Make all ability checks using 2d10 rather than 1d20. That brings the average rolls back down to the middle of the pack (8s to 12s mainly) and thus ability modifiers and proficiency bonus have a much greater impact on all your checks. If you have a -1 INT mod... you are much less likely to hit DC 15 skill checks when you are rolling 2d10 - 1, rather than 1d20 - 1.