D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[BoldItalic]

If Lefty is average-to-good at mental tasks in general, then give him average Intelligence. That is the raison d'être of this whole "Intelligence score" mechanic. If Lefty does not have average Intelligence, then in gameplay he will not be average-to-good at mental tasks in general. Can Lofty perform [insert mental task here]? Intelligence check. -3 penalty. This isn't tyrannical DMing; this is fundamentally how the ability score rules work.

And it is simply not true that you cannot penalize Lefty's lore-based skill checks. Of course you can. You can opt not to make the rolls, or make them with disadvantage, on the basis that it wouldn't make sense for him to be able to do that. If I make a character who's terrified of water and doesn't know how to swim, I don't give him a very low Strength score and model his average strength by buying up the other Strength-based skills. I give him an average Strength score, because that's what Strength is there for, and then when the need for a swimming check arises, say "Sir Archibald the Dry doesn't know how to swim".

To paraphrase the introduction to the PHB: specific beats general. You don't have to try and use the rules for general lack of ability to model a specific lack of ability. It's not what they're there for, and it results in unintended and undesirable consequences.

That's an interesting concept - that we attach to a character sheet a list of tasks (things for which ability checks are made) that are to be made with disadvantage. It's not something suggested in the books, but it could certainly be done.

Rather than disadvantage, though, I would propose that those specific tasks are made at, say, -5 (which is the usual equivalent of disadvantage).

The problem with using disadvantage for this, is that it only reduces the probability that something can be done, it doesn't block it altogether. If we give Lefty Int 12 (+1), say, but with a blanket disadvantage to reading-related checks, he can still read a complex tome (Hard task, DC20) if he rolls high enough (1% chance). That doesn't seem right. He shouldn't be able to read it at all.

But I like your idea. Perhaps the simplest way to do it is to have a (short) list of tasks that the character cannot perform at all (swimming, lore and so on) and say: no roll involved for these tasks, automatic fail.

The flip side of that would be a (short) list of tasks flagged as automatic success. All mundane tasks already come into this category (characters automatically succeed at walking down the street, or eating a sandwich) so we can add extra ones that, for this character, are deemed trivial. I might say, for example. that Lefty can automatically open locks.

Perhaps it ought to be limited to a single handicap and a single "super skill". It's changing the game, though. I think some playtesting would be needed.

BTW, BoldItalic automatically succeeds in arguments on forums but he automatically fails at reading Japanese.

 

[Vicaring]

So what would you do if you rolled a 5 for an ability score.

Force the -3 to everything applicable, and then the minute they start bitching about it forbid them from ever using anything but the Standard Array from thenceforth.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The problem with using disadvantage for this, is that it only reduces the probability that something can be done, it doesn't block it altogether. If we give Lefty Int 12 (+1), say, but with a blanket disadvantage to reading-related checks, he can still read a complex tome (Hard task, DC20) if he rolls high enough (1% chance). That doesn't seem right. He shouldn't be able to read it at all.

But I like your idea. Perhaps the simplest way to do it is to have a (short) list of tasks that the character cannot perform at all (swimming, lore and so on) and say: no roll involved for these tasks, automatic fail.

You'll note that I suggested both disadvantage and auto-fails. Reading a complex tome presupposes an ability to read, so illiteracy means auto-fail. If a character doesn't know the language, or is blind, or is seven hundred miles away from the tome, those are going to be auto-fails too. You don't need to make a list, and trying to enumerate all the tasks that are difficult or impossible for your character under the circumstances is probably a fool's errand. Just use common sense. (That could be 5th Edition's motto.)

The flip side of that would be a (short) list of tasks flagged as automatic success. All mundane tasks already come into this category (characters automatically succeed at walking down the street, or eating a sandwich) so we can add extra ones that, for this character, are deemed trivial. I might say, for example. that Lefty can automatically open locks.

And once you do this, you've entered the realm of min-maxing. Rulesets where you trade disadvantages for advantages in other areas are actually where the term "min-maxer" comes from: you choose minimal disadvantages in exchange for maximal advantages. In our case: "I auto-fail basketweaving and auto-succeed Stealth. Totally fair trade-off." I do not recommend implementing such a rule. Being talented at something is already covered, much more fairly, by proficiency and expertise.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Force the -3 to everything applicable, and then the minute they start bitching about it forbid them from ever using anything but the Standard Array from thenceforth.

You sure make playing at your table sound like a great big bundle of fun.

 

[BoldItalic]

You'll note that I suggested both disadvantage and auto-fails. Reading a complex tome presupposes an ability to read, so illiteracy means auto-fail. If a character doesn't know the language, or is blind, or is seven hundred miles away from the tome, those are going to be auto-fails too. You don't need to make a list, and trying to enumerate all the tasks that are difficult or impossible for your character under the circumstances is probably a fool's errand. Just use common sense. (That could be 5th Edition's motto.)

And once you do this, you've entered the realm of min-maxing. Rulesets where you trade disadvantages for advantages in other areas are actually where the term "min-maxer" comes from: you choose minimal disadvantages in exchange for maximal advantages. In our case: "I auto-fail basketweaving and auto-succeed Stealth. Totally fair trade-off." I do not recommend implementing such a rule. Being talented at something is already covered, much more fairly, by proficiency and expertise.

Upon reflection, I think you are right. Auto-success is a bad thing for anything other than mundane actions that any PC is assumed to be able to do, and that can be hand-waved. Also, there is another problem with it: a contest between, say, a creature with auto-success on Stealth opposing another creature with auto-success on Perception results in the universe imploding.

Potentially, there's the same problem with auto-fails, though it might not be too serious and one could rule that, if creature A auto-fails in a contest against creature B who also auto-fails, it's status quo and nothing happens.

I'm a bit worried that mini-maxers would never build a character with any auto-fails, but that's no different to the vanilla situation where they don't exist.

Back to Lefty. As initially designed, he is +1 on Investigation (logical deduction tasks) but -3 on Lore-based checks and any un-typed Int checks. I would role-play him as normally intelligent but that seems to offend some people, and I'm rather bluntly told that I'm doing it wrong. Suppose we change him to Int 12(+1) with autofail on lore-based checks, and everyone is happy with me role-playing him with normal intelligence. Now, I can't give him Investigation as a skill (let alone expertise) otherwise it comes out too high at +5. I have to find some other, possibly irrelevant skills instead. But that seems wrong for Lefty as I envisage him; Investigation (as applied to puzzling out complex locks) is one of his strengths, along with being clever with his fingers.

No, I'm going to stick to my guns and role-play according to Ability+Skills totals, and not just according to Ability rolls in isolation. I think ignoring skills is too simplistic for my tastes, but I'm not offended by people who take the other view.

I'll let Lefty have the last word: "Cut the red wire."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You sure make playing at your table sound like a great big bundle of fun.

Hear, hear! I personally dislike rolling, but try not to make a stink about it if that's the way the DM runs things--so a DM that intentionally seeks to get under my skin because he expected me to do a thing I don't even like in the first place is...not trying to win me over, it would seem.

 

[iserith]

Iserith is arguing pretty hard that low can equal high, which is an avoidance of roleplaying the low score.

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against assertions that there is a wrong way to roleplay an Intelligence score by the rules. I don't frankly care how anyone roleplays as long as it is fun for everyone and helps create an exciting, memorable story. But I object to claims that the rules demand we roleplay a low Intelligence a particular way or that there is any rules-mandated equivalence between IQ and Intelligence score.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against assertions that there is a wrong way to roleplay an Intelligence score by the rules. I don't frankly care how anyone roleplays as long as it is fun for everyone and helps create an exciting, memorable story. But I object to claims that the rules demand we roleplay a low Intelligence a particular way or that there is any rules-mandated equivalence between IQ and Intelligence score.

I'm tempted to play a character with, like, a MENSA-level IQ who can solve abstract logic puzzles and multiple-choice questions and who has a memory like a steel trap...

...but who just is profoundly (maybe deliberately) ignorant, perhaps after the fashion of a Lovecraftian scholar: terrified of knowing too much.

So, like, when he fails a History check, it's not because he's too dumb to know or remember historical facts, it's because he's been living isolated in a tower for most of his life and his keepers forbade education on history. He's not dumb, he just literally had no way of knowing the right answer.

The occasional time he succeeds anyway (thanks, Bounded Accuracy!) will be when the truth managed to creep into his isolated world.

He'll be a little like some of the people I know from strictly religious homeschooling backgrounds: he's not stupid, he's just been fed misinformation and taught not to be curious.

....maybe make him a former cultist to cement the isolation angle. "The only book I had growing up was The Prophecies of the Cult of the Dragon, and my parents told me it had all the truth in t he world, and it didn't mention anything about this...what did you call it...Never...winter?....I'm pretty sure that guy who told us to go there was playing a trick on us, guys."

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against assertions that there is a wrong way to roleplay an Intelligence score by the rules. I don't frankly care how anyone roleplays as long as it is fun for everyone and helps create an exciting, memorable story. But I object to claims that the rules demand we roleplay a low Intelligence a particular way or that there is any rules-mandated equivalence between IQ and Intelligence score.

Each and every time that I argued that low = low reasoning, and high = high reasoning, you argued against it. The only counter to that is low = high, otherwise you would have been in agreement with me. You did in fact argue that low = high.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Each and every time that I argued that low = low reasoning, and high = high reasoning, you argued against it. The only counter to that is low = high, otherwise you would have been in agreement with me. You did in fact argue that low = high.

There is the counter that you have been ignoring, which is that "low = low reasoning, and high = high reasoning" is incorrect, while "low = lower but not objectively defined reasoning, and high = higher but not objectively defined."

To phrase that more clearly:

You are saying 5 Int = specifically and objectively this bad at reasoning. 15 Int = specifically and objectively this good at reasoning (i.e. IQ 50 vs. IQ 150)

What people arguing against you are saying is 5 Int = non-specifically and subjectively worse at reasoning than higher scores. 15 Int = non-specifically and subjectively better at reasoning than lower scores (i.e. the range of scores from 3-20 could be treated as being from droolingly deficient to unimaginable levels of genius, but it doesn't have to be, it could be the range from how stupid I feel when a little drunk and very tired to how smart I feel when I am fully awake, energetic, and focused instead - the only thing objective about it being the modifier used should anything the character is doing actually call for a die roll).

Personally, I much prefer to treat the range as something entirely within my group's capability to role-play, which means not treating any particular score as being smarter than any of us present at the table, nor treating any particular score as being any dumber than we can be on a typical gaming night.