D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TheCosmicKid]

But the point is it isn't a ruling the DM has made, it's a concept the player has introduced into the game, so I would have the expectation the player isn't going to try to abuse it. I mean, we are all on board that this technique is something that should be used in an environment that supports and encourages player authorship, right?

The player authorship in this case is "I hit him with a chair".

 

[Psychometrika]

While I don't agree with the premise (I thinks of stats as intrinsic qualities), I'd be fine with it at my table. Good role playing is always welcome even if I think it is a bit silly.

 

[TwoSix]

The player authorship in this case is "I hit him with a chair".

Ok, seems legit. Seems more of a situational ruling, though. Not sure what the problem would be.

 

[TwoSix]

While I don't agree with the premise (I thinks of stats as intrinsic qualities), I'd be fine with it at my table. Good role playing is always welcome even if I think it is a bit silly.

Well, I do think there are ways to play the concept more seriously. (I think Elfcrusher and I both agree that his concepts from the OP are less than serious, even if it is fun to defend them.) I think if we wanted to get the disagreement into a more general form, it would be:

-Is it OK to roleplay a low stat as competence with an externally derived penalty, rather than just assumed incompetence/weakness?
-Is it OK to generate narration for checks using elements external to the character?

Oh, and you seem new, so welcome!

 

[Dausuul]

It's when someone comes up with a 5 Intelligence character and claims that they actually know everything and are only pretending not to that my eyebrow starts to go up.

My eyebrows go up too, but in the end I don't really care.

You blew your Int check. As DM, I'm not giving you, the player, the information you were seeking. You can announce to the table that your PC really does know and is just pretending not to. I take no position on the truth or falsehood of this statement; I will continue to run the world and make rulings as if your PC does not know, but you are free to justify the resulting events any way you like. The other players can buy into the story you're creating, or they can treat your PC as a loon with delusions of competence.

(That is my default position. If your justifications are sufficiently entertaining for everyone, or suggest cool things to add to the story, I may start playing up to them. However, as any of my players can tell you, that isn't going to give you an advantage over the other PCs - it just means I have more ways to mess with you.)

 

[TarionzCousin]

Back in the halycon days of 2E, I moved back to my hometown from New York City and took over playing the character of a friend who was moving away. The setting was Al Qadim and his character was a half-ogre whose INT and WIS scores were both below five.

Outside of combat, it was easy to play dumb. In combat, it was more difficult--especially because Greg* was playing an always invisible wizard who shouted out commands for everyone to follow. Greg was very intelligent and almost always directed my PC with sound tactical advice. What was a stupid half-ogre to do?

Naturally, I solved the problem by informing the DM in secret "Whatever Greg tells my character to do, I do something different." It really conveyed the lack of intelligence well/drove Greg crazy. It probably didn't help that my character carried the Mattock of the Titans, the only +6 weapon in D&D at the time, and refused to use it in combat because "shovels are for digging!"

Ah, good times.

*His real name. Greg, if you're reading this, now you know why!

 

[Psychometrika]

-Is it OK to roleplay a low stat as competence with an externally derived penalty, rather than just assumed incompetence/weakness?
-Is it OK to generate narration for checks using elements external to the character?

Oh, and you seem new, so welcome!

Thanks. Broadly speaking it is "OK" as it mostly does not impact the game, even though I am not in complete agreement with the premise. There are some corner cases, particularly magic related ones, where those external elements can be temporarily ignored that are problematic however. Mind affecting magics or abilities especially, like mind reading/control, could be pretty difficult to work around in a believable manner.

 

[Maxperson]

But that's terrible. If he has a +4 from Int and a -7 due to circumstances that are always applicable, just give him a 5 Int, and achieve the exact same result. Stats are not definitional. They exist only as a game mechanic. Your character concept is rooted only in the description you give for your character.

Nothing he listed was even remotely always applicable. People with low self-esteem still have moments when they think highly of themselves, in D&D they can also get charisma increases which will stop the low self-esteem. People in love are not besotted that badly 24/7. There will be moments, possibly permanent changes that will cause the full genius intelligence to shine. That's why a circumstance bonus is superior to just making it a 5 int. With a 5 int you can remove the "cause" and still have the penalty, which is nonsensical.

 

[Maxperson]

If you re-read my statement you will note that I didn't say his exercise met the RAW (or RAI!) description of intelligence. All I said is that his exercise accounted for the basic game mechanics of a low int. You're not quoting game mechanics, here, you're quoting the (arguably more important) general rules of what Intelligence refers to.

Sure, it accounted for the mechanics, but it did so in ways that don't make sense with how the game portrays intelligence.

As an aside, I hate that by default we only get one level of quoting in this forum. Totally fragments the discussion. And manually adding in nested quotes is a pain on mobile.

Agreed. I've been frustrated by that since my first day here, which oddly enough was nowhere near as long ago as 2004. I have no idea why it shows that as my join date.

 

[Maxperson]

But that would be cheating. You, as a player, have a responsibility to frame your narration in a manner that doesn't violate the mechanical result. If you get a 3 on your Arcana check, you can't frame it in a way that would result in an outcome consistent with you having succeeded.

That's completely wrong. A PC can lie and/or keep something secret if he wants. He isn't obligated to give information out if he succeeds in a check.