D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[MechaPilot]

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.

Bull. That part is specifically labeled Describe Your Character, with that subpart being labeled Your Character's Abilities, and it opens with the following: "Take your character's ability scores and race into account as you flesh out his or her appearance and personality. A very strong character with low Intelligence MIGHT think and behave very differently from a very smart character with low Strength."

That section is specifically about how to craft your character's personality from her ability score and it specifically uses a term that indicates possibility instead of certainty. You wanted to make this abut the English language and reading comprehension, you got it. And you lose. Good day sir!



Edit: Oh, and Jeff Albertson, if you have something you want to contribute to the discussion hop on in. I'm sure we'd all love to know what's so funny.

 

[BoldItalic]

I have provided the facts. Those facts are clear and absolute.

No, that is a false assertion. The references you have provided have meaning only when interpreted by people. Your interpretation is a priori neither more nor less correct than anyone else's.

So far everyone who has disagreed has fabricated things out of thin air in order to try and be right.

Speaking for myself, I agree that I have constructed a counter-example to disprove your assertions. You have not addressed this disproof, so the counter-example stands. Your assertion is disproved by default.

It's on you guys to prove those fabrications.

See above.

 

[Maxperson]

Bull. That part is specifically labeled Describe Your Character, with that subpart being labeled Your Character's Abilities, and it opens with the following: "Take your character's ability scores and race into account as you flesh out his or her appearance and personality. A very strong character with low Intelligence MIGHT think and behave very differently from a very smart character with low Strength."

That section is specifically about how to craft your character's personality from her ability score and it specifically uses a term that indicates possibility instead of certainty. You wanted to make this abut the English language and reading comprehension, you got it. And you lose. Good day sir!

Edit: Oh, and Jeff Albertson, if you have something you want to contribute to the discussion hop on in. I'm sure we'd all love to know what's so funny.

So it's good RP to put a 3 into strength and roleplay that you can lift 10000 pounds, or put a 4 into int and roleplay Einstein. I don't buy it. Choices should have meaning. When you choose to roleplay stats out as the opposite of what they are, you are rendering choice meaningless. If you aren't going to roleplay out the choices you make, why bother playing the game? If you don't want a dumb PC, don't give your PC a low int. If you don't want to play a weak PC, don't give the PC a low strength. It's nothing less than horrible RP, though, to give a low int or strength and then RP the opposite in order to avoid the results of your stat choices.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that is a false assertion. The references you have provided have meaning only when interpreted by people. Your interpretation is a priori neither more nor less correct than anyone else's.

It's not an interpretation. The sentence is very clear. Intelligence measures X, Y and Z. Period. There's nothing to interpret with that. There's no wiggle room for it to mean anything else.

Speaking for myself, I agree that I have constructed a counter-example to disprove your assertions. You have not addressed this disproof, so the counter-example stands. Your assertion is disproved by default.

No. Coming up with quack, quack, quack or other fabrications as a response doesn't disprove a clear, factual sentence.

 

[MechaPilot]

So it's good RP to put a 3 into strength and roleplay that you can lift 10000 pounds, or put a 4 into int and roleplay Einstein. I don't buy it. Choices should have meaning. When you choose to roleplay stats out as the opposite of what they are, you are rendering choice meaningless. If you aren't going to roleplay out the choices you make, why bother playing the game? If you don't want a dumb PC, don't give your PC a low int. If you don't want to play a weak PC, don't give the PC a low strength. It's nothing less than horrible RP, though, to give a low int or strength and then RP the opposite in order to avoid the results of your stat choices.

I'm going to answer this with a question: Did you even read my early post about how I would play a low Int character? I said I would play it with normal intelligence, and then intentionally make a few stupid decisions to reinforce and validate the perception that the character is dumb.

You were the one who was asserting that you had to play a 5 Int character as if it were mentally handicapped to be doing it right, despite the fact that most people who would try to do that would just end up like Cartman in the special olympics episode of South Park.

I have even agreed with you that a low Int character probably has a lower IQ than an average Int character. Where we disagree on that is simply the degree of difference involved. You say IQ = Int x10. I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out that the ability check math doesn't bear this out. You are free to treat it that way at your table, but don't pretend it's what 5e's default rules say and try to say that we are wrong for not using your interpretation that is utterly unsupported by the math.

 

[JonnyP71]

While I agree that players should use the numbers as a guide to how to roleplay characters, it's not limited to just the raw base stats - as the PCs have training in the form of Proficiency.

A low Int character will start from a low base for Int based skills, but with the help of proficiency can learn to overcome *some* of that - but even with proficiency is unlikely to perform an Int based skill as well as a PC who is more naturally adept at those skills due to a higher starting Int modifier. But if the high Int character never learns the skill, the less naturally able can move ahead of them through becoming more proficient.

Look at this with a real world example:

- my father-in-law is a decent bloke, but he's not intellectually gifted - Int roughly 8-9 on the D&D scale (He doesn't do computers so I'm safe from him ever seeing this ). He left school at age 15 with no qualifications, but got a job in a garage fixing cars - he went on to work as a mechanic for 40+ years, (therefore gaining a high level of proficiency). That experience lends itself nicely to other fixing tasks - he's fixed our washing machine and our plumbing. But give him a maths puzzle to solve and he'd throw it back at you moaning. Ask him a simple quiz question and he would struggle.

- like most D&D players (75% of the players in my groups have degrees, 2 are doctors, 1 is a university professor), I'd class myself as pretty bright - I was IQ tested at just over 140 (Int about 14 on the D&D scale). I can solve logic puzzles, enjoy maths problems, have been on various tough TV and Radio quiz shows. But I can't fix cars, washing machines or plumbing - because I've never learned. I have no 'proficiency'.

Mechanics, puzzles, quizzes - all Int based skills in D&D terms. There's 50-60 IQ points between my father-in-law and me, but there are intelligence based tasks at which he is far better than I am!

So in my opinion it is fine to play a low Int character as having some aptitude in an Int based skill, as he has taken the time to learn proficiency in that skill. He will not be especially good at that task until he gains proficiency through levels (practice, repetition), but he can improve.

Just as a 120 lb weakling can learn to climb (strength), someone with a stutter can learn to overcome it to give speeches in public (charisma), a clumsy person can learn to knit (dexterity).. and so on.

 

[Yardiff]

While Lefty might seem to be competent, put him up against any average person with the same training and you see just how he comes across as barely competent. Using skills to overcome a low ability score only gives that character a very narrow barely competent set of skills/knowledges, it doesn't change the fact that said character has a low ability score.

 

[Yardiff]

Again this is just me...

But all this using basic PDF, only -X% off of average, proficiencies used to overcome -X, etc to tells me that some people will bend over backwards to not have to roleplay a low mental ability score (that they put there in the first place).

 

[Maxperson]

Again this is just me...

But all this using basic PDF, only -X% off of average, proficiencies used to overcome -X, etc to tells me that some people will bend over backwards to not have to roleplay a low mental ability score (that they put there in the first place).

A lot of people want to devalue choice by sidestepping the consequences of those choices. I don't get it. If I make the choice to play an orc, I'm not going to pretend I'm not an orc and expect everyone else to pretend I'm not an orc in order to avoid the negatives of being an orc.

 

[MechaPilot]

Again this is just me...

But all this using basic PDF, only -X% off of average, proficiencies used to overcome -X, etc to tells me that some people will bend over backwards to not have to roleplay a low mental ability score (that they put there in the first place).

The PHB has the same exact wording in it as what I quoted from the basic PDF. I'm just going with the basic PDF because I'm at my computer and the PDF is handy.

Also, the -X% off average is a valid way of measuring how much lower a lower Int is. It's certainly just as valid as going with the IQ = Int x 10 option. Plus, it has the benefit of actually reflecting what happens when a lower Int character attempts an Int check to do something. Using the IQ = Int x 10 option results in a situation where the character is actually making smarter decisions when making Int checks than he is when being roleplayed as IQ = Int x 10 (how's that for some dissonance).

Also, I don't think anyone here is really saying a low Int character shouldn't be played as if he were dumber (I'm certainly not). We're simply debating the degree of difference involved. Also, how many people who make a character with a low Int actually know or have seen a person they can use as a model for making that character seem real and not like a stereotype of the mentally handicapped? How likely are they to pull that off without potentially offending a member of the group who may have a mentally handicapped friend or relative?

And while we're jumping on people for playing low Int characters too smartly, why aren't we jumping on people for playing high Int characters too stupidly? Most people of average or greater intelligence who play a low int character probably know just as much about how to think less intelligently as an average person knows how to think like a genius. "You're not a genius and therefore can't think like one? Then don't put that 16 in Int if you can't play it right."