D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

Elfcrusher said:

You don't think a player who takes out a contract on a player who doesn't want to PvP is not disruptive? Or one who takes advantage of the DMs invitation to "participate in the fiction" to claim that he's making nuclear weapons?

I will call it disruptive, so I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

Click to expand...

Where the hell did those examples come from? We were talking about players who see that zone of truth can get information out of the warlock (remember this was originally a discussion with TwoSix) and wondering why their characters wouldn't try to do that regularly.

Elfcrusher said:

False. As I've pointed out several times, the text in the books only says that Intelligence is related to those skills/tasks. It does not define what the relationship is. It doesn't, for example say "Somebody with a higher Int score is all-around superior at these tasks than is somebody with a lower Int score." Now, I think that's a probably a fair interpretation, but it's not actually written. So when you guys get on my case about "rules" so I'm pointing out that RAW actually gives so much leeway in interpretation that it's barely a rule.

Click to expand...

"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and ability to reason." Is Eloelle's 5 Intelligence measuring her mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or ability to reason? No, per your narrative, those are all superlative. You have it measuring interference by an outside force that prevents her from communicating what she knows to others. And, while we're on the subject of things the book does not say, it does not say "Intelligence measures interference by an outside force that prevents you from communicating what you know to others." That is a change you are making.

Elfcrusher said:

Sure. And I'm saying the risk can be mitigated with creative storytelling.

Click to expand...

Or it can be avoided entirely by keeping mechanics and narrative in synch, and you still get to tell stories exactly as creative -- more creative, even, because now you have the opportunity to tell stories where Eloelle's genius actually matters sometimes. You keep complaining about restrictions, but the biggest restriction here is what an Int of 5 artificially prevents Eloelle from doing.

Elfcrusher said:

"Tugging on the dangling plot threads" sounds benign. I think it comes down to the purpose: are you supporting the player by giving them challenging opportunities to roleplay the character they've created, or are you annoyed that they're using a non-canonical definition of Int so you're looking for ways to undermine their fiction? Surely you can acknowledge that those are two very different things?

Click to expand...

Yes, there are players out there who will try to ruin your fun out of spite. But you're constructing a false dichotomy. Noticing a plot hole your narrative creates, and even getting annoyed by it, is not necessarily a function of malice. Your narrative could genuinely be annoying.

pemerton said:

Isn't that's what's happening here? The player's concept is of a PC who is poor at achieving his/her goals by way reasoning/mnemonic endeavours (because his/her judgement is clouded, or s/he acts at the dictates of an external agent, etc). And s/he builds that PC by giving his/her PC a low INT, which means s/he is unlikely to succeed at action declarations pertaining to reasoning/mnemonics.

Click to expand...

But per the narrative of the example character, she does succeed at the action declarations. The player says she knows most things. Lying about what she knows is a subsequent choice she makes. In fact, it is another action declaration, and may require a Deception check even when no zones of truth are involved.

It's the difference between failing to kick down a door, and kicking down a door but rebuilding it afterward.

TheCosmicKid said:

Where the hell did those examples come from? We were talking about players who see that zone of truth can get information out of the warlock (remember this was originally a discussion with TwoSix) and wondering why their characters wouldn't try to do that regularly.

Click to expand...

Oh oh oh oh oh....I see what you're saying. I'm not imagining that the Warlock is going to taunt her companions by telling them that she actually knows; "in-character" she would keep her knowledge a secret and say, "Sorry, I don't know." Her narration is at the player level, not at the character level.

But now that I understand what you're talking about I can see how, at some tables with some forms of roleplaying, those two things are not separate, and that if the warlock narrates it then it's fair game for the players to try to magically extract it from her. At such a table I would either not play this character, or be judicious about when and how I narrate my superpowers.

Or it can be avoided entirely by keeping mechanics and narrative in synch, and you still get to tell stories exactly as creative -- more creative, even, because now you have the opportunity to tell stories where Eloelle's genius actually matters sometimes. You keep complaining about restrictions, but the biggest restriction here is what an Int of 5 artificially prevents Eloelle from doing.

Click to expand...

Now that's Orwellian. "Fewer character choices are actually more character choices."

These options don't preclude *any* existing options. A player could also create a more typical character. All The Typical Choices + A Bunch of New Choices = More Choices.

On a side note, your posts seem to be getting angrier and angrier...or am I imagining that?

EzekielRaiden said:

Contrast with the description of Intelligence in the PHB: "An intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning." "Other intelligence checks: communicate with a creature without using words; estimate the value of a precious item; pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard; forge a document; recall lore about a craft or trade; win a game of skill."

So the question then is, are there reasonable/sensible situations where you would call someone a "genius" when they do not draw on logic, education, memory, or deduction to achieve that status?

I'd argue yes. They're intuitive types; to reference the largely forgettable 2000 film Hollow Man, they don't need "the B and C of it," skipping straight from A to D. Things just make sense to them, without any ability to explain how or why to others. The problem comes in trying to model that within the game--how can you reason well, without being particularly good at logic? I'd explain it as "a very savvy player playing a realistically irrational character." They may or may not be foolish--that's sorta split between Int and Wis--but they have trouble consistently connecting actions to indirect consequences. E.g. most people would simply know that, rationally, you can't go shoot your neighbor's dog if it barks too much, as there are laws and etiquette and such. But a low-Int character might see the bright, clear line of "I have a problem, this is the most direct solution that achieves that end" and simply say LET'S DO IT, then cry, "Why didn't you TELL me killing the neighbor's dog would make them angry?!"

It would be a real tricky thing to pull off, but I think it could be done. Especially if it's a Bard, Rogue, or Knowledge Cleric (or all three) who puts Prof and Expertise into a couple Int skills. +12 to a skill tends to outweigh a -3 from ability scores

There's also, of course, the "Idiot Savant" tack, which would be best represented in 5e as...probably a BG feature. You're terrible at most Intelligence-related activities, but in your narrow range of competence, you are beyond the ken of mortals.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware that genius can and does apply to many things but the word genius itself has one meaning, to be superior to most others in X. From what I've read of this thread, which of course I could have gotten wrong, Elfcrusher is saying that genius is being applied to intellect in the example.


And also +12 at 20 lv ends up being only a +9 overall so a 5th level bard/rogue with a 20 stat will surpass this so called genius and a 20th level character will put the +9 character in the dust.

BoldItalic said:

He has a secretary who writes it down for him and reminds him about stuff. Basically, he plays the absent-minded professor who has far more abstruse things on his mind than mundane things like finding a pen.

Click to expand...

So he has the secretary with him in class to write it down? How does she get her other duties done?

He employed stand-ins to pass the test for him. He's a Rogue, remember? He cheated successfully.

Click to expand...

Now you're having him engage in active deception, which is at odds with your original description of the character who "doesn't know he's doing it". Not only that, he'd have to make logic/reasoning checks to make the decision that he needs to employ people to cheat for him- multiple times- AND choose the correct stand-ins.

There are also all kinds of variables in "test taking", since not every school or teacher does it the same way. Not all tests are done in big, anonymous herds. The higher you rise in education, the more likely you are to face tests that are done in small groups or even individually...and some are even oral.

In a practice dating back centuries, doctorates are typically earned after composing a written thesis- which must be approved*- and orally defending it to a panel of faculty in the field in which the doctorate is being sought, often including the test-taker's faculty advisor. These are people who are likely to know who he is. Screw up, and you have to either revise your thesis or come up with a new one.

IOW, it is extremely unlikely to have someone who it Int5 unknowingly defraud himself into a position as a Professor of Logic.

In addition, his "unintentional" taking credit for the work of others is eventually going to be revealed as academic fraud if the persons whose thunder he's stealing continue to rise through academia. And if they're smart enough to solve the unsolvable, they WILL rise. And they WILL want proper credit.

As the trickle of complaints becomes a flood, he will again face exposure.

He encourages the students to answer each other's questions. If they can't, he sets it as an exercise and sends them away to find the answer. It's sound education.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't fly in a formal logic class. As soon as he screws up a simple syllogism- and he will- it will be obvious to the whole class. Everyone EXCEPT him will have the answer. He won't be able to introduce and explain the basics of logical fallacies.

Repeated obvious failures will be reported to the administration. He will be exposed.

He flatters them that they are much cleverer than him. "I'm just a simpleton, you know," he declares, but they know he is a genius and that's the sort of thing a genius would say, so that proves it.

Click to expand...

You've never been to an academics social event, have you? Bouncing ideas off of each other and mental sparring are a common "party game". Screw up enough, and fun time turns into administrative politics.

It takes wisdom, insight, persuasion and all kind of people skills to play the role he plays, but it doesn't take Int in the D&D sense.

Click to expand...

It would take divine intervention.










* how is he coming up with an approved thesis?

pemerton said:

But I've dispelled the confusion, as I promised to do.

You've also more-or-less repeated back what I said - that this approach to ZoT prioritises mechanical effect (ie the handling of the players' entitlement to possess or deploy information within the play of the game) over a strict-infiction reading.

You mightn't like it, but you're no longer confused about it.

Click to expand...

No, you haven't. You said something based on the wrong rules interpretation, and I'm still exactly where I was when I said I was confused. I said then what I said above -- that LOL can't say she doesn't know because it's a lie to do so according to her narration. I do not understand how this works, given how ZoT works and given LOL's narration. You've failed to illuminate this.

Elfcrusher said:

Oh oh oh oh oh....I see what you're saying. I'm not imagining that the Warlock is going to taunt her companions by telling them that she actually knows; "in-character" she would keep her knowledge a secret and say, "Sorry, I don't know." Her narration is at the player level, not at the character level.

But now that I understand what you're talking about I can see how, at some tables with some forms of roleplaying, those two things are not separate, and that if the warlock narrates it then it's fair game for the players to try to magically extract it from her. At such a table I would either not play this character, or be judicious about when and how I narrate my superpowers.

Click to expand...

Can't speak for the Kid, but that's not my problem. I realize that. But it still introduces a point of conflict with ZoT in that the narration means LOL is lying.

Now that's Orwellian. "Fewer character choices are actually more character choices."

These options don't preclude *any* existing options. A player could also create a more typical character. All The Typical Choices + A Bunch of New Choices = More Choices.

Click to expand...

Not really. If, by playing within the expectations, you're at a disadvantage of everyone else is discarding those conventions then that's not really more choice.

Ovinomancer said:

Can't speak for the Kid, but that's not my problem. I realize that. But it still introduces a point of conflict with ZoT in that the narration means LOL is lying.

Click to expand...

Yes, but so what? In the narrative event stream Eloelle invokes mechanically illegal superpowers to both:
a) Solve the Riddle
b) Lie during ZoT

In the mechanical event stream Eloelle is bad at skill checks and saving throws, so she:
a) Fails to solve the riddle
b) Tells the truth about that during ZoT

Not really. If, by playing within the expectations, you're at a disadvantage of everyone else is discarding those conventions then that's not really more choice.

Click to expand...

How is anybody at a disadvantage here? Because Bob's ZoT spell did not work on Eloelle? By either event stream he fails to get the answer, so if Eloelle were playing 5 Int more traditionally the outcome would have been the same. What does Bob have to complain about?

I do think the onus is on Eloelle's player to make sure this remains true, and that could get tricky. Especially with players/DM trying to contrive situations to undermine her character concept.

The outcomes are not identical. They may look similar, but they have different underlying realities- and thus consequences- within the game. Like how a cleaner wrasse and a combtooth blenny look alike, but are in fact, very different fish, or how a coral snake and Scarlet King snake are not the same.

To illustrate: Bob is now actually the avatar of the god of truth, justice and knowledge. His whole schtick is being Wonder Woman with her golden lasso.

When he casts ZoT in the second case, Elolle doesn't know the answer, and Bob knows this is true.

In the first case, though, Elolle knows the answer and lies. But due to your mucking about, her supernatural patron lets her lie in the ZoT. That means Elolle's is getting a fiat trump of Bob's core schtick supernatural ability.

Dannyalcatraz said:

So he has the secretary with him in class to write it down? How does she get her other duties done?

Click to expand...

He only gives one class a week and his secretary is very efficient. He (the secretary is male) has plenty of time to attend to his other duties, such as finding pens and topping up inkwells. A clever student optimized the whole thing and explained it to him. Remember, telephones and email haven't been invented so there's nothing to tie a secretary to an office desk.

Now you're having him engage in active deception, which is at odds with your original description of the character who "doesn't know he's doing it".

Click to expand...

He doesn't see it as deception, if it's he who is doing it. Rogues are masters at self-deception.

Not only that, he'd have to make logic/reasoning checks to make the decision that he needs to employ people to cheat for him- multiple times- AND choose the correct stand-ins.

Click to expand...

No, he doesn't. He uses intuition. He intuitively understands people. That's Wis, not Int.

There are also all kinds of variables in "test taking", since not every school or teacher does it the same way. Not all tests are done in big, anonymous herds. The higher you rise in education, the more likely you are to face tests that are done in small groups or even individually...and some are even oral.

Click to expand...

Not when you own the university.

In a practice dating back centuries, doctorates are typically earned after composing a written thesis- which must be approved*- and orally defending it to a panel of faculty in the field in which the doctorate is being sought, often including the test-taker's faculty advisor. These are people who are likely to know who he is. Screw up, and you have to either revise your thesis or come up with a new one.

Click to expand...

Not when you own the university. You get awarded honorary doctorates by other universities.

IOW, it is extremely unlikely to have someone who it Int5 unknowingly defraud himself into a position as a Professor of Logic.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is very unlikely. He's the only one who's done it out of millions who haven't. But then, he's a genius. He can achieve things that are a million-to-one against.

In addition, his "unintentional" taking credit for the work of others is eventually going to be revealed as academic fraud if the persons whose thunder he's stealing continue to rise through academia. And if they're smart enough to solve the unsolvable, they WILL rise. And they WILL want proper credit.

Click to expand...

Not if you own the university where it's quite frequent for otherwise promising careers to be cut short. People who get deputed to collect half a gallon of fresh dragon blood from the Blue Mountains of The Auramands sometimes never seem to come back. Odd, that.

As the trickle of complaints becomes a flood, he will again face exposure.

Click to expand...

See above.

That wouldn't fly in a formal logic class. As soon as he screws up a simple syllogism- and he will- it will be obvious to the whole class. Everyone EXCEPT him will have the answer. He won't be able to introduce and explain the basics of logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

I said he was Professor of Logic. I didn't say he taught classes in logic. It's a purely honorary title bestowed ex officio on the owner of the university.

Repeated obvious failures will be reported to the administration. He will be exposed.

Click to expand...

You haven't got it yet. He is the administration.

You've never been to an academics social event, have you?

Click to expand...

Actually, yes.

Bouncing ideas off of each other and mental sparring are a common "party game". Screw up enough, and fun time turns into administrative politics.

Click to expand...

You've never been to a social event for owners of universities, have you? They play different games there.

It would take divine intervention.

Click to expand...

I think that's a decision the gods might wish to make for themselves.

pemerton said:

I'm not sure what "disconnect" means here. If it means "you can't read the fiction directly off the mechanics without some additional creative injection", that's true but doesn't break the game.

Click to expand...

It means that fluff has zero to do with the mechanic. If you hit a creature in the arm with a mace and it is narrated as the arm being cleanly sliced off, there's a disconnect and the game breaks. If you have a medusa that turns a PC to stone and you narrate it as feeling like a tickle, but nothing else happens, there is a disconnect that breaks the game. If you have a zone of truth that a PC fails and you narrate it as a success, there is a disconnect that breaks the game.

The fluff and mechanics are not connected when there needs to be a connection. No connection = disconnect.