D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Jediking]

Hey doc what do you think the problem might be?

Ook!

That bad huh. What do you suggest I do?

Ook!

Great! I'll give that a try.

Or some type of Orang-utan Librarian who realizes that being a strong, worry-free ape who enjoys bananas is better than being a struggling wizard?


And there is a lot of comparing Intelligence to IQ, which is a completely arbitrary and culturally-specific test that doesn't measure raw reasoning. Why can't you have a genius-level Barbarian with absolutely no prior education and have an INT 6? He may be great at solving riddles he hasn't seen before, but won't know anything about Intelligence (History/Religion/Nature/Arcana) checks.

It's almost as if all Ability Scores for RPGs are mere abstractions that can be applied and interpreted in different ways...

 

[HarrisonF]

I have a Charisma 5 gnome divination wizard. His thing is that he was born and lived by himself in the woods, so he doesn't really understand how to relate to people and tends to speak what he is thinking to anyone that will listen. This leads to all sorts of problems and miscommunications and devastatingly bad interactions with people.

This was really fun for about 5 sessions, and then it slowly began to grate on me as not really fun to play. Others in the party slowly got annoyed at the antics as well since he ended up spoiling a lot of plans and ruining interactions others were having. At that point, I worked with the DM and I got an adventure to get a Ring of Eagle's Splendor that could cast Enhance Ability (Eagle's Splendor) 3 times per day.

Now it lets him turn his ineptitude on and off, which is infinitely better for all of the players.

My takeaway from this is that having a 5 in a mental attribute is fun for games that only span a few sessions, but for really long adventure paths they will end up being annoying to most people involved. Physical attributes are probably fine, a 5 in str/con/dex will just make you bad at combat and certain things without really blowing up others chance to RP.

 

[iserith]

I have a Charisma 5 gnome divination wizard. His thing is that he was born and lived by himself in the woods, so he doesn't really understand how to relate to people and tends to speak what he is thinking to anyone that will listen. This leads to all sorts of problems and miscommunications and devastatingly bad interactions with people.

This was really fun for about 5 sessions, and then it slowly began to grate on me as not really fun to play. Others in the party slowly got annoyed at the antics as well since he ended up spoiling a lot of plans and ruining interactions others were having. At that point, I worked with the DM and I got an adventure to get a Ring of Eagle's Splendor that could cast Enhance Ability (Eagle's Splendor) 3 times per day.

Now it lets him turn his ineptitude on and off, which is infinitely better for all of the players.

My takeaway from this is that having a 5 in a mental attribute is fun for games that only span a few sessions, but for really long adventure paths they will end up being annoying to most people involved. Physical attributes are probably fine, a 5 in str/con/dex will just make you bad at combat and certain things without really blowing up others chance to RP.

A 5 in a score doesn't make you automatically annoying to other players. You have to choose to be annoying which appears to be what you did.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A 5 in a score doesn't make you automatically annoying to other players. You have to choose to be annoying which appears to be what you did.

An ability score, high or low is never an excuse to annoy other players.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A 5 int is more than just a -3 penalty. It also has an IQ equivalence of approximately 10xint number. So a 5 int will correspond to roughly a 50 IQ. As has been pointed out, it's barely smarter than a baboon.

That doesn't seem accurate. It doesn't show up in any of my core rulebooks. Maybe it came from some old issue of Dragon, like the gender-based stat modifiers?

I can see why such an idea would become popular, though. It's easy to understand and explain, and the in-game average would be very close to the real-world average (at least until 4E came along). It doesn't really resemble the rules in the book, though; a character with IQ 30 would flat-out not be playable as a heroic adventurer, barring exceptional intervention on the part of the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't like to play "IQ Cop" when I DM. I've got enough on my plate as is. If the campaign is old-school, then the riddle is solved by the player and their INT score is irrelevant. If the campaign is newer-school, the player is free to try, and they get the appropriate modifier to the check (which is -3 in the 3 most recent editions). Simple!

If you play with people who understand what intelligence is and roleplay it themselves, there is no IQ cop to play. They will appropriately self-limit their PC. If the PC has a 5 int and he is running around solving riddle after riddle, that player is a very bad roleplayer.

And I'd question the intelligence of any DM who let a school of jellyfish attempt to solve a riddle! Unless they were special magically smart jellyfish. Which is a whole other kettle of jellyfish...

Either intelligence is just a bonus or penalty, or it's more than that. If it's just a bonus or penalty, the jellyfish get rolls to figure things out just like anything else. If it's more than that, then it makes sense for intelligence to mean..........intelligence!

That's an interesting claim not backed up by anything in the rules I'm familiar with. Gives me an idea for a new PC, though: Dr. Koko, baboon MD. INT 4, WIS 12 (as per the 5e MM). She communicates by sign language and dotes on her pet cat. She's actually not bad as a doctor, since Medicine is driven off WIS...

It's 100% backed up by the rules. The rules only give intelligence in one way. That means that it applies to all things the same. What is not backed up by the rules is the idea that a baboon 5 int is less than an elf 5 int.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would a swarm of jellyfish get a roll to solve a riddle in the first place? They automatically fail.

Well now you're just being blatantly unfair to jellyfish. Since int is just a bonus/penalty, there's no good reason to be so anti-jellyfish with your ruling. If a PC with the int of a jellyfish would get a roll, all actually jellyfish should get the same roll.

 

[Lanliss]

It's 100% backed up by the rules. The rules only give intelligence in one way. That means that it applies to all things the same. What is not backed up by the rules is the idea that a baboon 5 int is less than an elf 5 int.

So a baboon can be a ranger. Interesting... I made a list of monsters from the MM that I would allow as PCs, I wonder if I should have checked some of the beasts.

 

[Mallus]

Since int is just a bonus/penalty...

For player characters. Invertebrate NPCs are different.

 

[iserith]

Well now you're just being blatantly unfair to jellyfish. Since int is just a bonus/penalty, there's no good reason to be so anti-jellyfish with your ruling. If a PC with the int of a jellyfish would get a roll, all actually jellyfish should get the same roll.

I'm not obligated to be "fair" to fictional jellyfish. I am obligated to be fair to real players. Mechanics come into play when the DM establishes uncertainty. There is no uncertainty as to whether a jellyfish can solve a riddle.

I also wouldn't ask a player to make an ability check to solve a riddle no matter how low his or her character's Intelligence score is.