D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Guest 6801328]

Yep, it's pretty obvious that some in this thread aren't arguing in good faith,

Yeah, I'll agree with that.

and frankly the derogatory nature of some of Elfcrusher's comments in particular are rather disheartening to see on a forum of this nature.

Funny, as far as I can tell derogation *is* the nature of this forum. The mods only step in when the hostility is overt, but personally I find the s.o.p. of cruising just below the mods' radar with plausibly deniable disrespect and hostility to be unadulterated pusillanimity. And, yes, I chose that word for it's etymologically unrelated but nevertheless perfectly applicable vulgar cognate.

And when I see that crap I don't respond in kind by hiding behind innuendo and disingenuousness: if I'm going to meet disrespect with the same then I at least have the balls to be obvious about it.

Some seem dogmatically determined to argue that things are RAW, even when they directly oppose the rules documents. I have no idea WHY they are trying to argue that they are RAW.

And here we have a great example of what I'm talking about. Was the above motivated by any sort of respect for the ideas of those you disingenuously refer to in the abstract "some"? Or even a genuine attempt to mask your last of respect?

So, now that we are clear about the terms under which you wish to engage, let's examine the rest of your feeble attempt to participate in this conversation...

If the character with a low strength score because of an injury was charmed and compelled to use his bulk in a way that didn't involve that arm the stats no longer match. If the character was in a situation where they could spare someone's life by using their bulk in a way that did not involve the arm then once again the stats are at odds with the character. I won't even bother with restorative magic.

To top it off if this "genius" who is pretending to be stupid was asked if they THOUGHT they knew the answer then some are arguing that they would simply make ZoT or insight, etc unable to determine that she was lying. Or some other convoluted reason that involves her being able to say "No, I don't THINK I know the answer" and having that be true, except 2 seconds later when they say she THINKS she knows the answer.

Yeah, uh ok, so clearly you completely fail to comprehend the concept being discussed here. You, like others before you, are conflating mechanics with narrative, and if you want to know what that means you can re-read the last 50 pages because honestly I'm getting tired of typing it repeatedly.

The thing is, nobody seems to have even the slightest problem with these concepts, besides pointing out the obvious mechanical issues. Somehow that isn't good enough though, it has to be RAW for some unknown reason.

The highlighted part is patently false. Two or three people have been very vocal about the fact that they have all kinds of problems with this whole narrative, aside from it conflicting with their bizarre interpretations of RAW.

As for "why", the answer is simply because it's an interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of roleplaying games. Or could be if some people didn't keep on trying to prove it's badwrongfun. And you could equally well ask why some people feel the need to insist that it's not RAW.

Back the kiddie table! Maxperson will keep you company.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, uh ok, so clearly you completely fail to comprehend the concept being discussed here. You, like others before you, are conflating mechanics with narrative, and if you want to know what that means you can re-read the last 50 pages because honestly I'm getting tired of typing it repeatedly.

We just expect the mechanics and narrative to be tied together as they are supposed to be. The narrative and the mechanics need to work in unison, each explaining and complementing the other, or the game is completely untrustworthy and in my opinion, unplayable. If I can't trust an orc to be a humanoid, because you might suddenly decide in that the narrative made an iron golem an orc, there's nothing that I can trust about your game.

The highlighted part is patently false. Two or three people have been very vocal about the fact that they have all kinds of problems with this whole narrative, aside from it conflicting with their bizarre interpretations of RAW.

Who? I've only seen people say that your way requires a house rule to work.

Back the kiddie table! Maxperson will keep you company.

Not me. I'm not making childish comments like that. Grow up.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My view is that if a single corner-case spell causes problems or complexities in an otherwise interesting and workable PC concept, it is the spell rather than the character concept that should yield.

A perfectly valid view given your playstyle. It's just a house rule, though. You are changing the mechanics of a spell to fit a concept.

Not sure exactly what corner-case pemerton is referring to. I think I agree with him in principle, but I haven't yet seen such a corner-case in the Eloelle/ZoT scenario. Nor can even picture what such a corner case might look like: if you are truly separating narrative from mechanics then you can literally invoke *any* intervention to avoid a paradox.

This conversation reminds me of one that reemerges in The One Ring forum every now and then, about Mannish spirits. One poster in particular, someone extremely knowledgeable about Tolkien insists that Mannish spirits are effectively non-existent, and has very good rationales to explain why the Nazgul and the Oathbreakers are unique exceptions.

The thing is, while his position is perfectly consistent with the texts, it is not the only consistent interpretation. Yes, the Oathbreakers were under a curse spoken by a king and invoking the name of Eru, and you might very well conclude that only a king of Elendil's standing invoking only Eru could enact such a curse.

Or you could rule that anybody with royal blood, invoking one of the Valar, might do the same thing.

It all depends on what you want your game...your fiction...to be like it. Do you want more narrative possibilities, or fewer?

I find it not only silly to try to parse the text...whether of Tolkien's work or the PHB...to prove that a narrow interpretation is the definitive one (rather than just one of many valid interpretations) but also kind of willfully unimaginative. As [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] replied to one of the naysayers early in this thread: "Your concept negates cool concepts and enables nothing."

 

[Guest 6801328]

We just expect the mechanics and narrative to be tied together as they are supposed to be.

I agree with everything up to "as they are supposed to be". Can you not see how that phrase is entirely subjective? Or how similar that sounds to the arguments people use to defend untenable social policy? ("Marriage is supposed to be...")

The narrative and the mechanics need to work in unison, each explaining and complementing the other, or the game is completely untrustworthy and in my opinion, unplayable.

Totally agree! And my narrative and the mechanics work together in unison, explaining and complementing each other. I get that you don't like how I'm defining low Int for this character, and that's a valid dislike, but it's simply not altering mechanics one iota, it's just explaining the mechanics differently than we're used to.

If I can't trust an orc to be a humanoid, because you might suddenly decide in that the narrative made an iron golem an orc, there's nothing that I can trust about your game.

You'll have to help me with this one. Are you describing having a player narrate that an iron golem is actually an orc, with everybody else at the table expected to participate in the fiction?

If you truly see that as analogous the Eloelle story then we still have a long way to go. Because Eloelle's narrative, as I've tried to explain, doesn't actually alter anything tangible in the game world. The narration is purely an inner monologue, shared with the rest of the table. That was the whole point of the thought experiment where she keeps the narrative to herself, to demonstrate how there's no effect on the game.

So maybe a better analogy would be where Eloelle, equipped with a magic weapon, gets a really lucky critical (did I mention she's Warlock 3/Rogue 17?) rolls all 6's and one-shots an iron golem. (Yes, I realize even then the damage wouldn't be sufficient; this is for illustration purposes only. Don't try this at home.) So she narrates how her Patron intervenes as she strikes, turning the iron golem into an orc that looks like an iron golem, enabling her to kill it in one blow.

Ok, that's a terrible narrative and I wouldn't actually ever use it. But do you see how the narrative doesn't contradict the mechanics? The dice let her one shot the golem; turning it into an orc was purely for (bad) flavor.

Who? I've only seen people say that your way requires a house rule to work.

Re-read. Plenty of hatred for/dismissiveness of the concept itself.

 

[Maxperson]

Not sure exactly what corner-case pemerton is referring to. I think I agree with him in principle, but I haven't yet seen such a corner-case in the Eloelle/ZoT scenario. Nor can even picture what such a corner case might look like: if you are truly separating narrative from mechanics then you can literally invoke *any* intervention to avoid a paradox.[/b[

Sure, but at that point you might as well be in a free form RP chat room as the rules mean nothing.

 

[TwoSix]

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] has already explained how he does this. And given that he is actually doing it, I think it rebuts the suggestion that it can't be done!

Honestly, it's surprisingly easy. Certainly in 5e's bounded accuracy environment, competent characters fail checks while incompetent characters simultaneously succeed all the time. (Even with a +6 stat modifier difference, it occurs slightly more than 10% of the time.) Considering people manage to develop convincing narratives for the Str 8 mage breaking down a door when the Str 20 barbarian fails, I don't see why a large man often failing to overcome a crippling injury would be so difficult to reconcile.

Provided, of course, one doesn't assume the game needs to maintain a fidelity to process simulation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure, but at that point you might as well be in a free form RP chat room as the rules mean nothing.

Oh, man, are we back to this again? Eloelle has broken no rules. She failed her Int roll. She doesn't know the answer to the Riddle. She answers that truthfully to the evil Cleric and to her Insightful dickhead companion. And she has a narration that fluffs it all differently.

When I say "you can literally invoke *any* intervention to avoid a paradox" the paradox I'm talking about is a broken rule. Gawd I hate to say "the rules mean everything" but they certainly don't mean any less than in a more traditional narration.

 

[Yardiff]

I have no idea, although it's an interesting thing to hypothesize.

Unlikely to ever need to be answered, though, because how exactly would the character's patron "decide to abandon" him/her? Setting aside the problem that this would break the Warlock class more generally, whose decision would this be? The DM's? Why would the DM do that? Just to undermine the player's narrative?

To pre-empt the answer: "Because that's how the DM determines this story unfolds" I call b.s. Massive piles of stinkin' b.s. To paraphrase something I just saw in another thread: Rule #1 is that given the choice between two viable story options, choose the one that doesn't undermine another player. Rule #2 is that there are always two options. So if the DM rules that, due to story, the Warlock has lost her connection to her Patron it means that the DM is intentionally trying to kill the player's chosen narrative, in which case there are much bigger issues at the table.

And why would the Player choose this change to the narrative without a good backup plan? Maybe the player just decides the RP isn't fun anymore. So the next time she takes a critical hit she describes a traumatic brain injury AND coincidentally the Patron abandons her. I don't know.

That said, just the fact that you asked this question suggests to me that your cart is my horse and vice versa. The question I would ask is: "What events would lead the player to alter the story and have her Patron abandon her?" An example might be a Headband of Intellect. Suddenly the player actually starts making all those Int checks, and is free to alter the narrative. If the Headband is subsequently lost, it's time to make amends with the Patron. Etc.

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".

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with everything up to "as they are supposed to be". Can you not see how that phrase is entirely subjective?

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.

Totally agree! And my narrative and the mechanics work together in unison, explaining and complementing each other. I get that you don't like how I'm defining low Int for this character, and that's a valid dislike, but it's simply not altering mechanics one iota, it's just explaining the mechanics differently than we're used to.

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.

You'll have to help me with this one. Are you describing having a player narrate that an iron golem is actually an orc, with everybody else at the table expected to participate in the fiction?

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.

If you truly see that as analogous the Eloelle story then we still have a long way to go. Because Eloelle's narrative, as I've tried to explain, doesn't actually alter anything tangible in the game world. The narration is purely an inner monologue, shared with the rest of the table. That was the whole point of the thought experiment where she keeps the narrative to herself, to demonstrate how there's no effect on the game.

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.

So maybe a better analogy would be where Eloelle, equipped with a magic weapon, gets a really lucky critical (did I mention she's Warlock 3/Rogue 17?) rolls all 6's and one-shots an iron golem. (Yes, I realize even then the damage wouldn't be sufficient; this is for illustration purposes only. Don't try this at home.) So she narrates how her Patron intervenes as she strikes, turning the iron golem into an orc that looks like an iron golem, enabling her to kill it in one blow.

Ok, that's a terrible narrative and I wouldn't actually ever use it. But do you see how the narrative doesn't contradict the mechanics? The dice let her one shot the golem; turning it into an orc was purely for (bad) flavor.

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.

Re-read. Plenty of hatred for/dismissiveness of the concept itself.

I'll take your word for it. I've skimmed posts, so I could have missed it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, man, are we back to this again? Eloelle has broken no rules. She failed her Int roll.

Yes.
[/quote]She doesn't know the answer to the Riddle.[/quote]
No. According to her narration, she knows the answer but will not provide it. Either narration matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's entirely orthogonal to the game being played and we shouldn't be having this discussion at all. You cannot divorce narrative from the game or it ceases to be a game and becomes a story-telling exercise.

She answers that truthfully to the evil Cleric and to her Insightful dickhead companion.

No, she doesn't. She lies, because she knows the answer. Yes, she failed her INT check, so she can't respond with what the DM would have told her, but she's narrated she knows the answer so she can't say she doesn't. This is a case of the concept walking itself into a corner. permerton (and you, I think) keep insisting that this should happen because then the DM must play the character, but that's a strange argument as it presumes that the player is infallible and unquestionable and it's only the DM's weird rulings that caused the situation. Rather, it's the player's choice to have narration that works against the mechanical outcomes that's the issue here. The player caused this situation, not anything else, and it's up to the player to work out a way to resolve the problem in their narration without expecting the DM or the other players to change rules or behaviors to accommodate it. Again -- this is the fault of the player of LOL, and it's not the responsibility of anyone else to fix it. Most clearly this isn't the fault of ZoT, because it's not broken in any other situation other than a player narrating in opposition to the mechanics.

And she has a narration that fluffs it all differently.

Yes, she again narrates in contravention of the mechanical outcome of the game.

When I say "you can literally invoke *any* intervention to avoid a paradox" the paradox I'm talking about is a broken rule. Gawd I hate to say "the rules mean everything" but they certainly don't mean any less than in a more traditional narration.

Sure, you can, but if you do so, it's a house rule, not RAW. Which has been my point all along -- you're welcome to play this way, with the concepts that cause issues with the rules -- but it requires you to intercede to prevent paradoxes in the rules that your choices have created, and those end up being house rules. Not wrong, and I'm happy you enjoy your games (sounds like you have fun!) but you can't claim that you're changing rules isn't actually changing rules because you don't want to say that. LOL might be able to narrate her own reality in your game, but you can't narrate your own reality out here.