D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[iserith]

Each and every time that I argued that low = low reasoning, and high = high reasoning, you argued against it.

I argued against those being necessarily the case by the rules or that someone could somehow be roleplaying a particular Intelligence score "wrong." I'm fine with somebody playing a slow-witted character or one that comes up with good ideas but isn't good at recalling lore. Or whatever else someone wants to come up with as long as it is fun, exciting, and memorable. I believe the rules are fine with it, too.

 

[Yardiff]

Upon reflection,
'stuff'

Again this is probably just me...

But from this post and other similar post I see you as bending over backwards to try and not play a low int character as a low int character. Lefty, even after intensive training, is barely competent at investigation. So, to me, your whole premise for playing Lefty as average int falls way short of being justified.

 

[BoldItalic]

Again this is probably just me...

But from this post and other similar post I see you as bending over backwards to try and not play a low int character as a low int character. Lefty, even after intensive training, is barely competent at investigation. So, to me, your whole premise for playing Lefty as average int falls way short of being justified.

Not exactly bending over backwards, I just presented a counterexample to the notion that a low Int score necessarily mandates role-playing the character as having a low intelligence in all respects. It's because ability scores alone do not tell the whole story. Lefty is of normal intelligence (he is not slow-witted) but poor at book-learning. His Int of 5 represents the latter, not the former.

Int scores do not represent the same thing as IQ scores. It doesn't matter how you scale them, whether you use x10 or x5, they are qualitatively different things. IQ tests try very hard (or should do) to avoid the results being affected by book-learning and only measure (informal description) the ability to understand and reason in isolation. Int scores are more generalized and represent both at once (four of the Int-based skills relate to lore, and one relates to deductive reasoning). I've driven a wedge between the two aspects of Int to illustrate the distinction.

But I'm well aware that some other people do not see the distinction. That's okay, as long as they are having fun.

 

[Maxperson]

Not exactly bending over backwards, I just presented a counterexample to the notion that a low Int score necessarily mandates role-playing the character as having a low intelligence in all respects. It's because ability scores alone do not tell the whole story. Lefty is of normal intelligence (he is not slow-witted) but poor at book-learning. His Int of 5 represents the latter, not the former.

Lefty isn't a counterexample, though. His low int gives him a reasoning deficiency regardless of any skills he might have or what those skills do. The skill is not int. Only int is int and his penalty applies, giving him below average int and reasoning ability.

Int scores do not represent the same thing as IQ scores. It doesn't matter how you scale them, whether you use x10 or x5, they are qualitatively different things. IQ tests try very hard (or should do) to avoid the results being affected by book-learning and only measure (informal description) the ability to understand and reason in isolation. Int scores are more generalized and represent both at once (four of the Int-based skills relate to lore, and one relates to deductive reasoning). I've driven a wedge between the two aspects of Int to illustrate the distinction.

But I'm well aware that some other people do not see the distinction. That's okay, as long as they are having fun.

The distinction you are trying to point out is a False Equivalence. The int skills are not themselves intelligence. They are purely skills. Compare Lefty to someone else of average intelligence and the skill, and you can see that he has reasoning deficiency, still.

 

[BoldItalic]

Lefty isn't a counterexample, though. His low int gives him a reasoning deficiency regardless of any skills he might have or what those skills do. The skill is not int. Only int is int and his penalty applies, giving him below average int and reasoning ability.

Wrong. He has below average int but better than average deductive reasoning ability as measured by Perception checks. Because that's what Perception checks measure. They measure the ability to make deductions. They measure reasoning.

The distinction you are trying to point out is a False Equivalence.

Careful with your terminology, there. I'm making a distinction and saying that Int and IQ are different. You seem to be saying that they are in all respects equivalent. If anyone is making a false equivalence, I rather think it would have to be you. If you are going to accuse me of anything, wouldn't it have to be of making a false distinction?

The int skills are not themselves intelligence. They are purely skills.

Not sure what you are saying here. Skills come under the heading of ability checks. You are fond of going by the book, so I refer you to PHB p.174 where it says, and I quote, "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score." I interpret that as meaning that the Investigation skill represents a specific aspect (deductive reasoning) of the Int score. I think I'm on fairly solid ground, there.

Compare Lefty to someone else of average intelligence and the skill, and you can see that he has reasoning deficiency, still.

He's not deficient at reasoning, he's average. Some people are better than him and some people are worse. Compared to someone better than him, he's not as good. Compared to someone worse than him, he's better. That doesn't mean he is mentally deficient. He's just ordinary. He's +1 on Intelligence (Investigation) checks, which is the game mechanic that corresponds to deductive reasoning. Are you saying that +1 represents mental deficiency? Because if so, I beg leave to challenge your definition of mental deficiency.

 

[Maxperson]

Wrong. He has below average int but better than average deductive reasoning ability as measured by Perception checks. Because that's what Perception checks measure. They measure the ability to make deductions. They measure reasoning.

He doesn't really, though. He has trained to overcome his deficiency, but that deficiency is still there. The skill itself is not intelligence.

Careful with your terminology, there. I'm making a distinction and saying that Int and IQ are different. You seem to be saying that they are in all respects equivalent. If anyone is making a false equivalence, I rather think it would have to be you. If you are going to accuse me of anything, wouldn't it have to be of making a false distinction?

My bad. I thought you meant that the skill was the same as intelligence. That's what I was referring to, not IQ and int.

Not sure what you are saying here. Skills come under the heading of ability checks. You are fond of going by the book, so I refer you to PHB p.174 where it says, and I quote, "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score." I interpret that as meaning that the Investigation skill represents a specific aspect (deductive reasoning) of the Int score. I think I'm on fairly solid ground, there.

The skills focus on becoming better at aspects, sure. They aren't the stat, though. The skills have to be learned, where the stat is inherent.

He's not deficient at reasoning, he's average. Some people are better than him and some people are worse. Compared to someone better than him, he's not as good. Compared to someone worse than him, he's better. That doesn't mean he is mentally deficient. He's just ordinary. He's +1 on Intelligence (Investigation) checks, which is the game mechanic that corresponds to deductive reasoning. Are you saying that +1 represents mental deficiency? Because if so, I beg leave to challenge your definition of mental deficiency.

He's nowhere near average at reasoning. At best, he's average at investigation only, which is hardly the only type of reasoning. He's woefully deficient at all the other sorts of reasoning.

 

[Mallus]

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.

Oh, it's facts you're a wanting? OK. I'm game!

A 5e character with a 5 INT can choose any Background. Including "intellectual" backgrounds like Sage.

A 5e character with a 5 INT can go to college for lore and become a Lore Bard. By 3rd level they'll have a total of 8 skills. They can even be good at them! (if their player avoids INT-based skills, of which, as I like pointing out, Medicine is not ) Or they can be barely competent at 2 INT-based skills if you compensate using Expertise.

A 5e character with a 5 INT can become a wizard! Put that in your pipe-weed pipe & smoke it. Their spell attacks rolls & save DCs will be bad. That's all. An INT 5 PC can conceivably learn 9th level spells -- there's no INT restriction at all. In fact, it shouldn't be too hard to design a playable INT 5 wizard by selecting mainly utility spells which don't depend on spell attack rolls or saves. So stick to things like divination, summoning, animating household objects & the dead, and... gasp... teleporting (which requires "familiarity", but no INT check).

So how do you reconcile this? You're claiming a 5 INT is barely smart enough to have a class in the first place. The rules claim, or rather state, a 5 INT PC can have any class (and theoretically learn the most complex wizard-y spells). Heck, if I have time I might work up a playable 5 INT wizard, "Herp Derp the Eye-Fighter" (he likes to fight Beholders... because he is an idiot!).

To be clear, I'm not saying a 5 INT PC should be played the same way a 15 or 20 INT PC is. But if an INT PC isn't prohibited from learning 9th level wizard spells, then they shouldn't be frowned upon for voicing a smart idea or solving a riddle during a session.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, it's facts you're a wanting? OK. I'm game!

A 5e character with a 5 INT can choose any Background. Including "intellectual" backgrounds like Sage.

A 5e character with a 5 INT can go to college for lore and become a Lore Bard. By 3rd level they'll have a total of 8 skills. They can even be good at them! (if their player avoids INT-based skills) Or they can be barely competent at 2 INT-based skills if you compensate using Expertise.

A 5e character with a 5 INT can become a wizard! Put that in your pipe-weed pipe & smoke it. Their spell attacks rolls & save DCs will be bad. That's all. An INT 5 PC can conceivably learn 9th level spells -- there's no INT restriction at all. In fact, it shouldn't be too hard to design a playable INT 5 wizard by selecting mainly utility spells which don't depend on spell attack rolls or saves. So stick to things like divination, summoning, animating household objects & the dead, and... gasp... teleporting (which requires "familiarity", but no INT check).

So how do you reconcile this? You're claiming a 5 INT is barely smart enough to have a class in the first place. The rules claim, or rather state, a 5 INT PC can have any class (and theoretically learn the most complex wizard-y spells). Heck, if I have time I might work up a playable 5 INT wizard, "Herp Derp the Eye-Fighter" (he likes to fight Beholders... because he is an idiot!).

To be clear, I'm not saying a 5 INT PC should be played the same way a 15 or 20 INT PC is. But if an INT PC isn't prohibited from learning 9th level wizard spells, then they shouldn't be frowned upon for voicing a smart idea or solving a riddle during a session.

The game is set up for that sort of ridiculousness to happen on occasion I suppose. That doesn't make it right or even okay, but no game is perfect. Intelligence limits on spells and spell casting was one of the things prior editions got right and 5e has gotten very, very wrong.

 

[Mallus]

The game is set up for that sort of ridiculousness to happen on occasion I suppose.

Yes, it is. Mainly because in 5e low INT doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not meant to act as a limiting factor in the way and to the extent you want it to.

That doesn't make it right or even okay, but no game is perfect.

So we're not talking about the facts anymore? We've moved on to your opinions and criticisms of 5e. Got it. That's cool, but I was okay with the facts. Probably because they were on my side!

Intelligence limits on spells and spell casting was one of the things prior editions got right and 5e has gotten very, very wrong.

How would INT-based spell limits improve the game? Arcane casters are still strongly incentivized to have a high INT score. The game plays fine, as is.

 

[Yardiff]

Wrong. He has below average int but better than average deductive reasoning ability as measured by Perception checks. Because that's what Perception checks measure. They measure the ability to make deductions. They measure reasoning.


Careful with your terminology, there. I'm making a distinction and saying that Int and IQ are different. You seem to be saying that they are in all respects equivalent. If anyone is making a false equivalence, I rather think it would have to be you. If you are going to accuse me of anything, wouldn't it have to be of making a false distinction?


Not sure what you are saying here. Skills come under the heading of ability checks. You are fond of going by the book, so I refer you to PHB p.174 where it says, and I quote, "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score." I interpret that as meaning that the Investigation skill represents a specific aspect (deductive reasoning) of the Int score. I think I'm on fairly solid ground, there.


He's not deficient at reasoning, he's average. Some people are better than him and some people are worse. Compared to someone better than him, he's not as good. Compared to someone worse than him, he's better. That doesn't mean he is mentally deficient. He's just ordinary. He's +1 on Intelligence (Investigation) checks, which is the game mechanic that corresponds to deductive reasoning. Are you saying that +1 represents mental deficiency? Because if so, I beg leave to challenge your definition of mental deficiency.

Let me get this straight. If Lefty with a 5 int and an investigation of +1 you'd roleplay as an average int character, does that mean that if Lefty had and average int (10 to 11) and an investigation of +4 you'd roleplay him as highly intelligent?