D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[BoldItalic]

Not entirely accurate. The 5 int does in fact mean that he has low reasoning ability. That he got training (fairly nonsensical all by itself) does not change that. Compared to someone who does not have low reasoning ability and who is trained, he is substandard. The low reasoning ability due to the 5 int doesn't go away. It was just masked somewhat by a skill.

When you say "nonsensical", do you mean that rogues are not allowed to take expertise in Investigation if they have an Int of 5? Do skills have qualifying stats in your game? If so, that is a houserule. Or are you saying that you think that skills in general are nonsensical? That 5e is wrongly designed? If so, you have a bigger issue. Could you clarify, please, so that we do not misunderstand each other?

Laying that aside for the moment, if we test his reasoning ability by presenting a task that requires it, he has a better than average chance of success. It doesn't matter how he does it inside his head, or how it came about historically, if he can demonstrate the ability to reason successfully, it is reasonable to role-play him accordingly.

The Int score measures several different things. In the case of this hypothetical rogue, it represents a lower than average ability to recall lore.

The 'expertise' would equate to the character being a 'savant' in that skill. Doesn't change that the character has a low int.

Not a savant, I think. That would imply that he was outstanding at it and able to amaze people with his ability. I'm only positing a character with slightly better than average Investigation. Nothing special. Just +1.

My point is that low int doesn't necessarily imply a poor ability to reason. It could do, and if there are no compensating factors then you would be justified in role-playing the character accordingly but if there are compensating factors, they need to be taken into account. A character who is able to perform well at Investigation (which is the only skill check defined in the rules as relating to reasoning ability) is, by any measurable or observable test, able to reason.

Remember, PCs do not know their own ability scores. Only players know that. In-game, my rogue is not stupid as far as he and the characters around him are concerned, just ignorant and unschooled in lore. And that is easily explained by his Urchin background. Should he not be role-played accordingly?

If you roll a low intelligence and then try to justify it by claiming it doesn't actually mean you are stupid it seems a bit munchkin like. You should not be coming up with great plans or whatever with low intelligence.

Unless your character is quite good at coming up with sensible plans despite being poorly educated? This is perfectly possible, as my rogue example shows.

I'm beginning to like my rogue.

 

[Shasarak]

The basic 5E rules are inadequate for expressing the range of characters cited in fiction. If someone was actually as stupid as Homer Simpson, then that person would not be going out on adventures.

And yet somehow Homer manages to go out on Adventures every week. Doh!

 

[BoldItalic]

How would you role-play this Int 5 character?

Lefty Locks

Rogue-1
Background Urchin (crunch) / Guild Artisan (personality).

Str 10 (+0) Dex 17 (+3), Con 10 (+0)
Int 5 (-3) Wis 12 (+1), Cha 10 (+0).

PROFICIENCIES
Tools: Disguise Kit, Jeweler's Tools, Thieves' Tools (Expertise) (Locks & Traps +7)
Saving Throws: Dex (+5) Int (-1)

SKILLS
Acrobatics +5, Insight +3, Investigation (Expertise) +1, Perception +3, Sleight of Hand +5, Stealth +5
Arcana/History/Nature/Religion -3

Backstory
Lefty never went to school and has never learned to read and write. When his father drank himself to death, Lefty had to fend for himself for a while until he was lucky enough to be apprenticed to a master locksmith. He proved an apt pupil and his masterwork piece, the Reciprocating-Tumbler Overward Skeleton Lock, is renowned as being almost impossible to pick (DC 29). There is a limited demand for such intricate locks, however, so he has not made a fortune out of the invention. Now, his apprenticeship finished, he needs capital to set up in business on his own and will turn his hand to anything.

Personality
Lefty is well known for his work and wants to make sure that everyone appreciates it. He is always taken aback when people haven't heard of him. He believes that anything worth doing is worth right. He can't help it - he's a perfectionist.

Ideal He works hard to be the best there is at his craft.
Bond He feels that he owes his master a great debt for making him into the person he is today.
Flaw He is horribly jealous of anyone who can outshine his handiwork. Everywhere he goes, he is surrounded by rivals.

Typical Phrases

• Do I look like a walking library? Ask a bleedin' wizard!
• No probs. I'll have it open in a jiffy.
• Useless as a paper bread knife.
• This'll cost you.
• Don't walk on the flagstones.
• All in a dog's day.

 

[Maxperson]

When you say "nonsensical", do you mean that rogues are not allowed to take expertise in Investigation if they have an Int of 5? Do skills have qualifying stats in your game? If so, that is a houserule. Or are you saying that you think that skills in general are nonsensical? That 5e is wrongly designed? If so, you have a bigger issue. Could you clarify, please, so that we do not misunderstand each other?

Laying that aside for the moment, if we test his reasoning ability by presenting a task that requires it, he has a better than average chance of success. It doesn't matter how he does it inside his head, or how it came about historically, if he can demonstrate the ability to reason successfully, it is reasonable to role-play him accordingly.

The Int score measures several different things. In the case of this hypothetical rogue, it represents a lower than average ability to recall lore.


Not a savant, I think. That would imply that he was outstanding at it and able to amaze people with his ability. I'm only positing a character with slightly better than average Investigation. Nothing special. Just +1.

My point is that low int doesn't necessarily imply a poor ability to reason. It could do, and if there are no compensating factors then you would be justified in role-playing the character accordingly but if there are compensating factors, they need to be taken into account. A character who is able to perform well at Investigation (which is the only skill check defined in the rules as relating to reasoning ability) is, by any measurable or observable test, able to reason.

Low int is expressly a low ability to reason per the book. It's nonsensical that a 5 int rogue could learn to reason like that. However, as was pointed out, the rogue being a savant would explain it. There is no ability to pick and choose which aspects of int are below average. Low int = low at all of them.

 

[iserith]

Low int is expressly a low ability to reason per the book... There is no ability to pick and choose which aspects of int are below average. Low int = low at all of them.

Again, you're just assigning your personal values here. The book says nothing of the sort.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, you're just assigning your personal values here. The book says nothing of the sort.

Do you deny that the book says that int = reasoning ability?

 

[iserith]

Do you deny that the book says that int = reasoning ability?

The book says: "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." It goes on to say how Intelligence affects Intelligence checks and spellcasting ability. Later, it tells us that ability scores also play into saving throws.

What it does not say is how we must roleplay a character with a particular Intelligence score or any other score for that matter. It does, however, say: "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." Therefore, you, the player, says how the Int-5 character thinks. You, Maxperson, may be really desirous of everyone else playing an Int-5 character as you would do, but the rules make no such mandate. Come to this realization and your position becomes unassailable as it goes from an erroneous assertion of fact to one of opinion. Which of course you're welcome to no matter how silly others think it is.

 

[Maxperson]

The book says: "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." It goes on to say how Intelligence affects Intelligence checks and spellcasting ability. Later, it tells us that ability scores also play into saving throws.

If you accept that int measures ability to reason, then low int MUST = low ability to reason and vice versa. That's how it works. Especially in this edition where he designers have told us that the common usages of language is how to read the rules.

What it does not say is how we must roleplay a character with a particular Intelligence score or any other score for that matter. It does, however, say: "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." Therefore, you, the player, says how the Int-5 character thinks. You, Maxperson, may be really desirous of everyone else playing an Int-5 character as you would do, but the rules make no such mandate. Come to this realization and your position becomes unassailable as it goes from an erroneous assertion of fact to one of opinion. Which of course you're welcome to no matter how silly others think it is.

If you play a low int as a high int, you are doing it wrong. Low = low. High = high. Low =/= high. People can in fact roleplay in a wrong manner.

 

[iserith]

If you accept that int measures ability to reason, then low int MUST = low ability to reason and vice versa.

If you play a low int as a high int, you are doing it wrong. Low = low. High = high. Low =/= high. People can in fact roleplay in a wrong manner.

A diminished ability to reason is reflected in the -3 modifier. A player is not required or even asked to roleplay the character in any particular way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Do you deny that the book says that int = reasoning ability?

The book says that Int can correspond to reasoning ability, not that Int does correspond to reasoning ability.

If a character has low Int, that might be because it has poor reasoning ability. It might also be for some other reason.

A implies B, but it's not necessarily true that B implies A.