D&D 5E Making Intelligence less of a dump stat

[ryanroyce]

I don't think I'm alone in feeling that Intelligence is too much of a dump stat in 5e. In 3e, Intelligence granted bonus skill points and languages known, but that was dropped for 5. I understand why they did that, but I'm not happy that no other mechanics took their place (at least beyond skills and saving throws, and even then INT is probably the least valuable in that regard, too).

I have an idea that I think will fix that (at least somewhat), using the Training function of the Downtime rules. Basically, the 250 days required to learn a new language or tool proficiency would be reduced (or even increased) by 25 days per point of Intelligence above (or below) 10, to a minimum of 1 day at INT 20. Now, the utility of this is obviously dependent on the DM even using the Downtime rules to begin with, and the ability to learn a few extra languages and tool proficiencies still doesn't quite stack up to bonus hit points or modifying both AC & Initiative, but I think it's at least competitive with improving your carrying capacity.

Anyway, thoughts?

The breakdown, by INT Score:
INT - DAYS
8 - 300
9 - 275
10 - 250
11 - 225
12 - 200
13 - 175
14 - 150
15 - 125
16 - 100
17 - 75
18 - 50
19 - 25
20 - 1

 

[bedir than]

I would recommend including the INT skills in this as well

 

[pming]

Hiya!

It's not a dump stat because of "mechanics". It's seen as a dump stat by some DM's and some Players because of their play style.

It has been my experience that skills and stat checks that come up frequently usually have failures that end in a slight delay or minor setback. Stats that some up every now and then have failures ending in serious delays or fairly significant setbacks. Those stats that come up once in a blue moon usually end in utter failure or unmitigated disaster.

It has also been my experience that, over time, the so-called "dump stats" are seen that way because the DM just doesn't do his/her job as "adjudicator of the world's reality", and in stead performs his/her job as nothing more than "the player who rolls for the monsters".

In my games, for example, Investigation/Int is used all the time...about as equal as any other stat check/skill...but the failure for not knowing something, or forgetting something, often ends up with dead PC's. I also don't "refresh" the players minds about stuff...usually. Just recently the party met with a guy who was seeking adventurers to life a curse from his liege lord ("Into the Wilds", DCC #38 for anyone interested). The guy gave them info, told them where to go to find Wildsgate (the frontier town/fort), and some other basic info. Nobody wrote anything down. Next session they get to Wildsgate and then get stopped at the gate by a big, burly barbarian dude with a huge axe, and a creepy "harrow-elf" looking guy (a race from the fantasy heartbreaker RPG "Darkurthe Legends"). The big dude asks "So, what brings you here? Are you looking for adventure, or trouble?...[gently caressing the notches in his big-axe]...".

The PC's reaction? ... "Uh...we're here because, um...[hey why are we here again?...*mumble mumble*]...Oh, right. Because of a curse". The Reeve asks "Oh? Really now? And who told you that?...[raises big-axe off ground and hefts it over one shoulder]"... "Uh...[stunned silence]"... At this point I asked for an Intellect roll from everyone (the game system is Dominion Rules RPG. After a series of failures...and much sweating/nail-biting... someone made it. ("Tuvin", I whisper). "Oh! Right! Tuvin! That travelling bard type guy! Him...he sent us!".

Morale of the story: Don't forget that might get you killed.

Now, of course this is all anectdotal and doesn't rely specifically on "mechanics" that are "built-in" to the game. But, as I said, a DM and Players that see any stat in any game as a "dump stat" are just not "adjudicating" the game so much as "following the RAW".

Hope all that makes some kind of sense!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Simple solution: Add NPC Mystics from the new playtest.

 

[ccs]

Simple solution: Add NPC Mystics from the new playtest.

How would that make Int less of a dump stat? Assuming nobody chose to play one.

 

[Wulffolk]

Because they have attacks that require Intelligence saves, thus encouraging players not to dump that stat

 

[freeWeemsy]

Nature checks are one of the most commonly used checks in my campaign since it is the check used to harvest poison. I have also extended it to be the check used for most herbalism and creature harvesting checks. Granted this generally means you only need one player to specialize in the stat for it to be at its most useful, I still wouldn't consider it a universal dump stat.

 

[Shiroiken]

I grant an additional language or tool proficiency equal to your Int modifier (yes, this can cost you if its negative). I like the notion of adjusting the number of days for training by your Int modifier, but I wouldn't lower it down to 1 day (or else mid to high level wizards will have every tool proficiency and language). I'd probably set the lowest amount at 14 days with a 20 Int.

 

[Cyrinishad]

Well, you could always eliminate "Common" as a language... And bring back the "languages known" mechanic. That would suddenly make Intelligence much more relevant.

 

[Mercule]

It's not a dump stat because of "mechanics". It's seen as a dump stat by some DM's and some Players because of their play style.

This. I don't like playing dumb characters. Therefore, I generally don't dump Intelligence. That's style difference #1.

Style difference #2 is that, most of my group has been playing D&D and other RPGs for upwards of 20 years (I'm at 35). We've been through the "newbie" phase and are generally unimpressed by pretending to figure out that fire is bad for trolls. Nonetheless, new editions of the game offer changes to things like level drain attacks and elemental resistances. People also forget things, after a while. My players don't feel the urge (or fight it) to comb through the Monster Manual to memorize what each monster does. Instead, we roll Intelligence checks (or some knowledge skill, which is the same basic thing) to see what their character knows about a monster. I should note that this isn't a forced ignorance. If all the players are quite aware of what's going on, we roll with it and it's assumed to be common knowledge, at least to adventuring types.

Of course, this is the same group that, when someone kept calling the goblins in LMoP "orcs" (or vice versa, whatever), they went with it and decided their PCs were genuinely ignorant of the differences between the two.