D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

Wrong by your standards or wrong by my standards? If you role play Lefty Locks as a near-imbecile, you are role-playing him wrongly by my standards. You can role-play your characters in your games however you like, but don't tell me how to role-play my characters in my games. You don't have that authority.

Wrong by what is written about intelligence. My standards have nothing to do with this.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think the key here is that there are two different things going on.

1) A lower ability score implies a lower capability in the parameters covered by the ability score.
2) No attempt at quantifying exactly how much lower this lower is has been made by the game.

So while a 5 Intelligence is certainly less capable than a 15 Intelligence, that doesn't actually mean anything objective other than that on the scale from 1 to 20, 5 is lower than 15.

If someone wants to consider the entire range of character ability scores as being nearly normal human range, such that a 3 is mildly below average and 20 is no more than actually capable of the people playing the game, there is nothing in the game rules that disagrees with that consideration.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see MUST either.

It's called common usage of language. There is no optional language present, so it's non-optional.

The description of the stat describes how it interacts with Intelligence checks. A character with low Int will demonstrate poor mental acuity, poor recall, and poor ability to reason; to exactly the degree that those are reflected by the penalty to skill and ability checks. Anything beyond that is speculation and interpretation.

The english is written in such a way as to be non-optional and absolute. There is no speculation or interpretation going on except by you, in direct defiance of how language works.

 

[Satyrn]

It's called common usage of language. There is no optional language present, so it's non-optional.



The english is written in such a way as to be non-optional and absolute. There is no speculation or interpretation going on except by you, in direct defiance of how language works.

I read that sentence as saying Intelligence represents those aspects in some combination that adds up to 5, not that each aspect is rated 5. So that in one character the mental acuity might be horrible while the reasoning is fine, and in another character the reasoning is horrible bit the mental acuity is decent, but that each character is - over all - dumb. They're just each dumb in their own special way.

Your interpretation seems to require that every dumb character is identically dumb.



(if we're gonna discuss natural English, I get to read between the lines, judge the intention of the speaker and all the other things tools that get used in natural communication. That is how I arrive at my interpretation of that sentence about Intelligence)

 

[MechaPilot]

Reviewing the PHB.

Using Each Ability:
Every task that a character or monster might attempt in the game is covered by one of the six abilities. This section explains in more detail what those abilities
mean and the ways they are used in the game.

Intelligence:
Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.


I don't see the word CAN anywhere.

Basic PDF, page 8. It mentions that there MIGHT be a difference in the was a low Int and high Int character thinks. "Might" is an indicator of possibility, just as "can" is.

 

[BoldItalic]

Wrong by what is written about intelligence. My standards have nothing to do with this.

We can agree that your standards have nothing to do with this.

I do not agree that I am wrong. You have not convinced me of that.

If I might make a suggestion - "proof by repeated assertion" will never convince me of anything, because I know it is fallacious. See if you can come up with some other argument that is not simply a repetition of what you have already said.

You never know, we might both learn something.

 

[MechaPilot]

It's called common usage of language. There is no optional language present, so it's non-optional.

Optional language is present. Page 8, basic PDF. Ignore it if you want to but it's in the rules, and it specifically mentions low vs high Int.

 

[Maxperson]

I read that sentence as saying Intelligence represents those aspects in some combination that adds up to 5, not that each aspect is rated 5.

Since there is absolutely zero language to say such a thing, how do you possibly read it that way? That sentence says nothing about "some combination" or anything about numbers at all.

So that in one character the mental acuity might be horrible while the reasoning is fine, and in another character the reasoning is horrible bit the mental acuity is decent, but that each character is - over all - dumb. They're just each dumb in their own special way.

You might as well say that you can read it as suggesting that ALPO is the best dog food, too. That's just as present in that sentence as your "interpretation" is.

Your interpretation seems to require that every dumb character is identically dumb.

Not identically dumb, just in the same aspects of intelligence. It very clearly says that intelligence is all three of those aspects.

(if we're gonna discuss natural English, I get to read between the lines, judge the intention of the speaker and all the other things tools that get used in natural communication. That is how I arrive at my interpretation of that sentence about Intelligence)

You aren't reading between any lines. You're fabricating things whole cloth that are not there.

 

[Maxperson]

Optional language is present. Page 8, basic PDF. Ignore it if you want to but it's in the rules, and it specifically mentions low vs high Int.

That page has nothing to do with the kind of options being discussed here. That section is talking about how abilities interact with each other. Someone who is strong and has a low int might react differently than someone who is weak and has a low int, because your capabilities help shape you. It's not at all talking about someone who is stupid getting to act like he's brilliant just because.

 

[Maxperson]

We can agree that your standards have nothing to do with this.

I do not agree that I am wrong. You have not convinced me of that.

If I might make a suggestion - "proof by repeated assertion" will never convince me of anything, because I know it is fallacious. See if you can come up with some other argument that is not simply a repetition of what you have already said.

You never know, we might both learn something.

I have provided the facts. Those facts are clear and absolute. So far everyone who has disagreed has fabricated things out of thin air in order to try and be right. It's on you guys to prove those fabrications.