D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

iserith said:

"After assigning your ability scores, determine your ability modifiers using the Ability Scores and Modifiers table." (Basic Rules, page 7)

"Because ability modifiers affect almost every attack roll, ability check, and saving throw, ability modifiers come up in play more often than their associated scores." (Basic Rules, page 57)

"The three main rolls of the game—the ability check, the saving throw, and the attack roll—rely on the six ability scores. The book’s introduction describes the basic rule behind these rolls: roll a d20, add an ability modifier derived from one of the six ability scores, and compare the total to a target number." (Basic Rules, page 57)

"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class... To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier." (Basic Rules, page 58)

"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." (Basic Rules, page 61)

So when I say "D&D 5e said it's a -3 modifier to Intelligence-related checks to test the character's mental acuity, ability to recall, and reason..." I'm right. And when you sit there and claim that the rules say that:

Click to expand...

Right. Not a single rule says that the -3 is itself how low int reflects low reasoning ability. Nobody disputed that the -3 applies to int checks, and that's all that your rules quotes showed.

And in the same breath say that my absolutely correct paraphrase of the above-quoted rules is just me "assuming," you are not arguing in good faith. It doesn't take an IQ-test taking frog to see it either.

Click to expand...

You are assuming. Nothing in any of those quotes said that the -3 is in fact the reasoning deficiency. Nobody disputed that the -3 applies to rolls.

You are confused. In this game, the DM determines if an ability check is appropriate (DMG, page 237). That I do not force players to play - or only play with players who play - Int 5 a specific way ("specific" as compared to playing it however they like) does not mean frogs get to make Intelligence checks to take IQ tests. It's silly to even have to explain this to you. I don't know where you're even coming up with this stuff anymore. But I do know why.

Click to expand...

You don't get to play however you like. That's a myth. There are limits to how you play that you accepted from many different sources.

Maxperson said:

Right. Not a single rule says that the -3 is itself how low int reflects low reasoning ability. Nobody disputed that the -3 applies to int checks, and that's all that your rules quotes showed.

You are assuming. Nothing in any of those quotes said that the -3 is in fact the reasoning deficiency. Nobody disputed that the -3 applies to rolls.

You don't get to play however you like. That's a myth. There are limits to how you play that you accepted from many different sources.

Click to expand...

The quotes I provided couldn't be more clear. I can't believe how disingenuous you are being just because you don't want to admit that your preference isn't a rule. I am through discussing this with you, but will happily discuss it with those who want to continue in good faith.

iserith said:

The quotes I provided couldn't be more clear. I can't believe how disingenuous you are being just because you don't want to admit that your preference isn't a rule. I am through discussing this with you, but will happily discuss it with those who want to continue in good faith.

Click to expand...

Nothing of the sort. I asked you to provide a rule that explicitly stated what you claimed. You couldn't do that. Instead you provided a bunch of rules that don't say what I asked for or what you are claiming, but instead just say that the penalty applies to rolls. That was something not disputed. I'm not being close to disingenuous by refusing to admit that your assumptions are fact.

BoldItalic said:

Sorry, this is the Int 5 thread. You have to role-play Int 5 and at least guffaw otherwise you're role-playing it wrong.

Click to expand...

OK. I must be a bad roleplayer!

Maxperson said:

You need to do your research better. An eagle can carry a sheep. As for the giant lizard picking a lock, sure. If it was smart enough to figure it out, it has the dex to do it.

An eagle is the strongest bird, able to lift something four times its own body weight during flight.
Learn how eagles have a connection with ancient Aztecs in our Animals A-Z section.

Click to expand...

I think I'll skip the bit about Aztecs.

As to the rest - what is your source?

I am looking at this, this and this. They suggest that an eagle can carry half its weight, not four times and certainly not 10 times (90 lb for a 4 kg eagle, which is a typical weight for a bald eagle). Eagles can carry off lambs, but I doubt many eagles are going to carry off a fully-grown sheep, which can weigh in the neighbourhood of 50 to 100 kg (ie much the same as a person). I can easily imagine being hurt by an eagle stooping on me - but not being carried off by one!

As for your comment about a giant lizard, my response is the same as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s to the idea of a frog taking an IQ test. It seems absurd. I mean, how does a giant lizard pick a lock? It has not fingers! Does it use its tongue? (And how does it hold chopsticks, which is also something a human of average DEX can do?)

Maxperson said:

Why would it be impossible according to the rules you put forth?

Click to expand...

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] already answered this: a check is only permitted when the GM deems the situation uncertain in some way. It is certain that a frog can't take an IQ test: it can't write, it can't reason in the relevant way, it's a frog! Hence no check is involved. Many other RPGs have a similar rule, of applying a "credibility" or "genre appropriateness" test as a screen for permissible action declarations (eg HeroQuest, Marvel Heroic RP).

One way of framing the discussion in this thread would be: is the GM entitled to forbid certain action declarations by a player whose PC has 5 INT, on grounds that they are not credible? The answer may well be "yes", depending what exactly 5 INT is taken to mean in the fiction. But as I've said, I think this is a danger zone because it risks excluding a player from the play of the game in a way that having a 5 STR or DEX wouldn't.

Maxperson said:

Nothing in any of those quotes said that the -3 is in fact the reasoning deficiency.

<snip>

You don't get to play however you like. That's a myth. There are limits to how you play that you accepted from many different sources.

Click to expand...

Can you explain, then, what is the reasoning deficiency, and how it works? For instance, what action declarations is the GM entitled to block, or deem automatic failures, on account of the PC having a 5 INT?

Yardiff said:

The rule book says that an average ability is 10 - 11, so an ability 5 points below that is pretty low.

Click to expand...

The rulebook also says that a 5 STR person can carry 75 lb (or 30-ish kg) without slowing down. That's not that weak - eg my primary school-aged children, who don't weigh more than about 25 kg, can't carry their own body weights without slowing down. So STR 5 is stronger than a primary-school aged child.

There are two possible conclusions: either the spectrum of scores from 3 to 18 isn't actually covering a very wide range of real-world possibility; or the scores are, to a significant extent, mechanical constructs intended to serve game-play purposes, and don't reliably map onto or measure real world capabilities in any very systematic way. I think the second conclusion is more plausible.

With regard to animals and their ability scores, I think they only have scores for the following reasons.
Firstly, as a general comparison between other creatures and the PC's to give the overall idea of what these beasties can and can't do.
Secondly, they need to have ability scores in order to make saves vs spells and contested actions etc...

For the examples upthtread:

A frog zapped isn't a maze spell (for whatever reason)! still must have a chance of finding their way out (int save).

An eagle trying to wrench something from a PC's grip would require a contested Str check.

A lizard dodging a fireball needs to make a Dex save.

Whether these scores can be used to do more 'human' tasks (pick locks, sit IQ tests) is something else in my opinion and I think, as a DM, I'd not allow a check.

Interesting discussion, though. I see points on both sides tbh!

Maxperson said:

...
It does set low int = low ability to reason.
...

Click to expand...

Actually, strictly speaking, it doesn't. In the sentence on p.177 it doesn't use the word "low" and therein lies our problem.

If you want to inject the word low into the sentence and you want to get people to agree with your modification, you need to negotiate agreement on what the word "low" means in this context. So far, in this thread, that negotiation hasn't exactly succeeded, which is why we are here, four hundred or so posts later, no further forward.

There is a suggestion in the PHB (p.14) that a character with low intelligence might speak simply or easily forget details. It's only a suggestion but it's about all we have to go on as far as RAW is concerned.

To help everyone unite in agreeing a common position, I'm now going to propose an assertion that I'm fairly sure everyone here will disagree with.

If Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason, then low Intelligence measures it badly.

As in: frogs are not very good at estimating how clever you are.

See? I've twisted the meaning of the sentence so that intelligence is not the ability to think, it's the ability to measure thinking. It's consistent with the syntax of the sentence but I'm playing fast and loose with the semantics. I've been devious and exploited the ambiguity of natural language. I've done this to make you all think.

pemerton said:

I think I'll skip the bit about Aztecs.

As to the rest - what is your source?

Click to expand...

I have followed nature shows for 35+ years. Eagles have always been shown flying off with goats and other animals that are very large compared to the eagle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XafAdkZIYKA

As for your comment about a giant lizard, my response is the same as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s to the idea of a frog taking an IQ test. It seems absurd. I mean, how does a giant lizard pick a lock? It has not fingers! Does it use its tongue? (And how does it hold chopsticks, which is also something a human of average DEX can do?)

Click to expand...

This is the thing. You are arguing for my side of things and against Iserith. I have been saying from the get go that the measure for int is not simply a bonus or penalty. Iserith has been saying that it is ONLY a bonus or penalty and that nothing in 5e says intelligence is anything else. He has been arguing against me the entire time when I argue that it's not just a bonus or penalty. If his argument is true, there is no rational reason to deny the frog his IQ test or the lizard his pick lock attempt. After all, the stat is only a bonus or penalty and there are no other considerations.

For him to now start arguing the DM should just deny the poor frog its IQ test is essentially him arguing out of both sides of his mouth. His argument becomes, "When it comes to INT, only the bonus or penalty applies to reasoning and not anything else, except when I want it to. Then it does."

One way of framing the discussion in this thread would be: is the GM entitled to forbid certain action declarations by a player whose PC has 5 INT, on grounds that they are not credible? The answer may well be "yes", depending what exactly 5 INT is taken to mean in the fiction. But as I've said, I think this is a danger zone because it risks excluding a player from the play of the game in a way that having a 5 STR or DEX wouldn't.

Can you explain, then, what is the reasoning deficiency, and how it works? For instance, what action declarations is the GM entitled to block, or deem automatic failures, on account of the PC having a 5 INT?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be blocking the players. My players understand that a low intelligence = a low ability to reason and they would roleplay that out themselves. They wouldn't try to cheat the system and get around it by using their ability to reason things out as players and then have the PC inappropriately figure things out. None of them are going to try and play a 5 INT as if it were an average or higher score, but with a penalty the way Iserith says is okay.

The rulebook also says that a 5 STR person can carry 75 lb (or 30-ish kg) without slowing down. That's not that weak - eg my primary school-aged children, who don't weigh more than about 25 kg, can't carry their own body weights without slowing down. So STR 5 is stronger than a primary-school aged child.

There are two possible conclusions: either the spectrum of scores from 3 to 18 isn't actually covering a very wide range of real-world possibility; or the scores are, to a significant extent, mechanical constructs intended to serve game-play purposes, and don't reliably map onto or measure real world capabilities in any very systematic way. I think the second conclusion is more plausible.

Click to expand...

It's the latter. This is a game and sometimes game constructs range to the absurd. When that happens, it's incumbent on the DM to reign in the absurdity if it will ruin the game for the group.

BoldItalic said:

Actually, strictly speaking, it doesn't. In the sentence on p.177 it doesn't use the word "low" and therein lies our problem.

If you want to inject the word low into the sentence and you want to get people to agree with your modification, you need to negotiate agreement on what the word "low" means in this context. So far, in this thread, that negotiation hasn't exactly succeeded, which is why we are here, four hundred or so posts later, no further forward.

Click to expand...

I'm not interjecting anything, though. Intelligence = ability to reason. Whenever you have one thing equal another, anything that modifies one, modifies the other equally. If you have a low intelligence, it's automatic that you have a low ability to reason. That's how equality works. This is especially true in 5e where we know that things are written with the common usages in mind.

Iserith on the other hand is taking the stat bonus/penalty and trying to claim that the bonus is HOW reasoning is affected by int score, despite there being no rule that says that he is correct. He is assuming not only that the bonus is how reasoning is affected by int score, but also that it is the only way. When I pointed out that there isn't a rule that says he is correct and that he is assuming, he picked up his ball and went home. A very weak rebuttal.

There is a suggestion in the PHB (p.14) that a character with low intelligence might speak simply or easily forget details. It's only a suggestion but it's about all we have to go on as far as RAW is concerned.

Click to expand...

I've said for a long time now that it's up to the player to interpret how run a low reasoning ability for his PC's 5 intelligence.

If Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason, then low Intelligence measures it badly.

As in: frogs are not very good at estimating how clever you are.

See? I've twisted the meaning of the sentence so that intelligence is not the ability to think, it's the ability to measure thinking. It's consistent with the syntax of the sentence but I'm playing fast and loose with the semantics. I've been devious and exploited the ambiguity of natural language. I've done this to make you all think.

Click to expand...

You've admitted that you twisted it, though.

Ok I get why there are those who don't want to set a standard for the various ability numbers. If there isn't a standard then you can say that X is just as good as any other number and thus you can avoid having to do what you consider hard, roleplay a particularly 'low' mental ability score.