D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'm confused. Upthread you said "A knowledge check isn't something a PC can initiate." But now you're saying that it is something a PC can initiate, and hence that the player of that PC has control over. Which is it?

It's not something the PC initiates, but it is something the PC does. Just like a save generally isn't something that the PC initiates, but is something that the PC does.

As for a dominate spell, here is the description in the SRD (p 137):

While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.” If the creature completes the order and doesn’t receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn’t do anything that you don’t allow it to do.​

This would clearly enable the caster to force the dominated person to answer a question. As a matter of gameplay, how would we work out whether or not the person knows the answer? I would have thought the canonical way is by making a knowledge check.

Another way to look at it is this: the caster instructs the dominated PC to answer a question. The player now has to have his/her PC obey that command. But what does the PC say? If it is certain that the PC knows the answer, the answer has to be given. If it is certain that s/he doesn't know the answer, the PC answers "I don't know." If it is uncertain, a check is made. But who has authority over the question of whether or not it's certain or uncertain? The GM (per SRD p 77).

What makes you think that the player has any say over this?

It doesn't matter. Nothing in Dominate allows it to force knowledge checks, so it doesn't matter what the player or PC has control over.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I guess [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] should answer this, but I think the answer is obvious: the encumbrance limit for the character is as per 7 STR.

Which is nonsense for a brawny character. A brawny character would be able to carry more than a strength 7 allows. The arm has no bearing on that.

Is this a restriction that models the ingame causation (ie the PC is limited in this way) or just a metagame rule (ie TwoSix will never declare an action in which the PC picks up a larger amount of gear)?

Here's the thing. It's irrelevant whether he would ever declare that he lifts a higher weight limit or not. If the possibility is there, and it is if you are brawny, then you don't have a strength of 7.
 

Yardiff

Adventurer
In the hobgoblin sorcerer example its the player explaining why the character has such high athletics skill when they had such low str, this was because the homebrew hobgoblin race had expertise in athletics so started the game with an over all +2 in athletics. Twosix is explain why there is a possitive in athletics.


Edit: all the other character examples are trying to explain away a negative in all int based skills but still say they are geniuses so they can RP characters as above average int.
 
Last edited:


pemerton

Legend
It's irrelevant whether he would ever declare that he lifts a higher weight limit or not. If the possibility is there, and it is if you are brawny, then you don't have a strength of 7.
This is true only on the strength of an assumption about the relationship between the mechanics and the fiction which is being rejected by those who put forward these examples.

If something is possible for the character in the fiction, but never actually occurs, then from the point of view of gameplay it is no different from it being impossible.

Eloelle is capable of reciting all the truths that a genius would know, but she doesn't. From the point of view of gameplay, therefore, she is indistinguishable from anyone else with a 5 INT. Which is a good thing, given that the player has written "5" in the INT box of Eloelle's character sheet!
 

pemerton

Legend
Nothing in Dominate allows it to force knowledge checks, so it doesn't matter what the player or PC has control over.
Here's an example: My wizard PC's backstory is that I was an apprentice wizard trained in the college of the City of Grehyawk. Since then, I have periodically returned to the college during downtime, engaging in research, training and the practice of my profession as a mage.

My PC is dominated by a NPC, who asks "What are the ingredients necessary to make a potion of phasing?" I, the player, don't know the answer to this question, as I have not read it in any rulebook and it has never come up in play. But clearly there is quite a reasonable chance that my character might know the answer.

If the GM decides that this is so, is s/he not entitled to set a DC and request me to make an Arcana check? And of course parallel examples could be given using other knowledge/lore skills.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
This is true only on the strength of an assumption about the relationship between the mechanics and the fiction which is being rejected by those who put forward these examples.

Yes, and it results in nonsense. I don't hang with nonsense.

If something is possible for the character in the fiction, but never actually occurs, then from the point of view of gameplay it is no different from it being impossible.

And I have already proven that to be wrong. Women will be impressed by his physical strength, because he appears to be as strong as they think he is.........because he IS as strong as they think he is. His appearance affects game play, and since his appearance is drastically different from his strength it causes a disconnect.

Eloelle is capable of reciting all the truths that a genius would know, but she doesn't. From the point of view of gameplay, therefore, she is indistinguishable from anyone else with a 5 INT. Which is a good thing, given that the player has written "5" in the INT box of Eloelle's character sheet!

She suffers from similar disconnects and absurdities, but those are not visible the way the strength is and take something along the lines of Zone of Truth to expose.

She is more playable than the hobgoblin, but still has to have things house ruled around her to preserve her fiction.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Here's an example: My wizard PC's backstory is that I was an apprentice wizard trained in the college of the City of Grehyawk. Since then, I have periodically returned to the college during downtime, engaging in research, training and the practice of my profession as a mage.

My PC is dominated by a NPC, who asks "What are the ingredients necessary to make a potion of phasing?" I, the player, don't know the answer to this question, as I have not read it in any rulebook and it has never come up in play. But clearly there is quite a reasonable chance that my character might know the answer.

It's just as reasonable that your PC doesn't know the answer since there's no way you learned every potion, especially advanced ones.

If the GM decides that this is so, is s/he not entitled to set a DC and request me to make an Arcana check? And of course parallel examples could be given using other knowledge/lore skills.

The DM can set a DC for you to roll to know the thing if he decides that you don't auto know or auto fail. The DM should not force you to roll the check, though. The DM should never play your character for you, and forcing such a check is the DM playing your character. If you the player think that your PC didn't learn that potion for whatever in game reason, possibly you didn't get to advanced potions, then you can just say your PC doesn't have that knowledge.
 

pemerton

Legend
The DM can set a DC for you to roll to know the thing if he decides that you don't auto know or auto fail. The DM should not force you to roll the check, though. The DM should never play your character for you, and forcing such a check is the DM playing your character. If you the player think that your PC didn't learn that potion for whatever in game reason, possibly you didn't get to advanced potions, then you can just say your PC doesn't have that knowledge.
Forcing me to roll the check isn't playing my character, though. Making a knowledge check isn't about something my character does in the fiction. It's about establishing backstory.

Suppose the question was not about the formula for the phasing potion, but the location of the chief alchemist's office. Again, I the player have no idea (we've never even used a map of the college, as it's just something that comes up during downtime), but surely my PC at least has a chance of knowing.

I don't understand on what basis you are saying that I, as a player, can simply decree what has happened to my PC in the past - a type of "god's eye view" authorship - yet you are adamant that the narration for ZoT can't unfold in the same way.
 

pemerton

Legend
Women will be impressed by his physical strength
What if the PC's CHA is 8? Since when does STR score determine anyone's reactions in a way that would be problematic in this particular case?

it results in nonsense
I want to be clear on this: are you and [MENTION=6789021]Yardiff[/MENTION] saying that Gygax, in his DMG, is wrong in describing one possible narration for low DEX as being that the character is agile and slippery in the grasp, but weak in all other respects (hence slow, poor balance, poor hand-eye coordination, etc).
 

Remove ads

Top