D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[BoldItalic]

Really? Physical jigsaw puzzles? Investigation?

Oh yes, very definitely. I'm doing one right now. How do I solve it? I search for pieces that fit the holes. I search for holes to put the pieces in. I use clues from the shapes and colour patterns to help do that. I deduce from the shape and colour pattern on a piece, the right place to put it. I try pieces for fit and discard them if they don't. Pure Investigation.

You're responding to my specific examples, but they're only examples.

Specific beats general ...

You're really missing the forest for the trees. Any task that relies on cognitive ability is going to call for an Intelligence check, and Lefty is going to be bad at it. That's what "in general" means.

Again, you're saying you can avoid specific problems, but they're only symptoms of the general problem. D&D is an open-ended game. You never know when you'll run into a situation where the rules assume that Intelligence corresponds to general cognitive ability, no matter how carefully you try to avoid such situations. You've assiduously picked your way around all Intelligence-based features for however many levels, then one day Lefty opens a dungeon door and in the next room there's an intellect devourer.

You envisage a game with a multitude of checks for which no skill applies, yes? Such checks are certainly allowed by the rules, but are they common in your games? Are they your default assumption? That skills are rarely applied? In my games, we try to make things interesting by making skills relevant most of the time, so that players can play to their strengths. Our default assumption is that skills matter most of the time because the DM contrives things that way.

In short, you're bending the rules in a way the designers did not intend ...

Whoa there! Are you saying that you know the designers intentions better than I do? Because if so, stop right there.

Why not just give Lefty the 12 Intelligence that is so obviously a better fit for his character?

Because the premise of this thread is Int 5. And because I don't agree that Int 12 is a better fit.

 

[BoldItalic]

Oh yes, very definitely. I'm doing one right now. How do I solve it? I search for pieces that fit the holes. I search for holes to put the pieces in. I use clues from the shapes and colour patterns to help do that. I deduce from the shape and colour pattern on a piece, the right place to put it. I try pieces for fit and discard them if they don't. Pure Investigation.

As a rider to that, my wife uses Perception. She sees intuitively where the pieces go. Between us, we do just fine.

Insofar as IQ represents the ability to solve mental problems, Investigation and Perception both contribute to it. You can use either or both on the same problem (although using both at once is likely to be more successful more quickly). One represents deductive reasoning and the other represents inductive reasoning. So mapping from game numbers to an IQ score ought, it seems to me, to take account of both.

For example: IQ = [ Investigation Adjustment + Perception Adjustment ] x7.5 + 100

The average and standard deviation come out about right. If 3d6 ability rolls represent the general population, the variance of an ability roll is 8.75 so the SD of an ability adjustment (which is half the ability score with a constant offset) is sqrt(8.75)/2. Adding two independent variants together has an SD that is sqrt(2) times bigger, so that comes to sqrt(4.375). To make the SD of the IQ score come to 15 or 16 (which IQ tests are commonly normalised to) we need a factor of about 7.2 or about 7.6. I've called it 7.5 for convenience.

On this basis, Lefty has an IQ of 130. He's bright and he's more inclined to solve problems by intuition than calculation. He can see how the pieces of a lock function and how to operate them; he doesn't need to measure the lengths of the tumblers and use trigonometry to do it.

I like that. I'm comfortable with that. I know how to role-pay Lefty, now.

 

[Yardiff]

So again we're back to bending over backwards to justify not having to roleplay a low mental ability score.

Tell me do you believe classes and class features are innate abilities?

 

[BoldItalic]

So again we're back to bending over backwards to justify not having to roleplay a low mental ability score.

Sorry, but you are completely mistaking my motives. You failed your Insight check

Tell me do you believe classes and class features are innate abilities?

Try guessing the answer*, then I'll tell you if you are right or wrong. Then you can tell me why you asked the question and we'll take it from there. Deal?

*Hint: all classes have a feature called "Ability Score Improvement".

 

[iserith]

Perhaps the reason some people find my way of building and playing Lefty heretical, is that old habits die hard and the 2e model is still the default assumption? Where Int=IQ and there is no scope for anything else?

Yep. There are a lot of assumptions being brought in from other games and being erroneously applied to D&D 5e in my view. A common issue, really.

 

[iserith]

I'm #10 for XP received on Enworld and #7 in Laughs received largely to Jeff Albertson. Thanks, Jeff! With your help, I'll soon be at #1!

 

[Mallus]

To be fair, the 2e PHB pretty much equates Int to IQ (I'm looking at p.15) but skills work a bit differently in 2e, there's no proficiency bonus to add or subtract so there's no scope for building a Lefty in 2e. Essentially, you just roll against your ability.

I dug out my old 2e PHB last night and my reading of the INT section is that it's pretty ambiguous, even contradictory. A low INT PC is described as being "slow and dull-witted". But the section concludes by saying "... don't rely too much on your PCs INT score. It's up to the player to provide the creativity and energy your character posses". Meaning 2e still hews closer to the AD&D paradigm that smarts -- in the context of solving common in-games challenges & puzzles -- come primarily from the player who is actually playing the game.

2e also ditches the restriction to the fighter class for low INT characters. But keeps the restrictions on wizards & spell levels. And the whole skill system is labeled optional, so your Lefty is still a legal and viable character. His 5 INT wouldn't stop him from being a good thief. His INT wouldn't even restrict him from the Read Languages ability - that's entirely level-based, with no modifier.

edit: there's a more general, even philosophical question floating around this thread like an argumentative ghost: do the rules exist to help you *make* a character, or do they exist to help you *not make* a character? To my mind, parsing the rules in order to disallow a particular character concept should only be done in cases of extraordinary & disruptive powergaming, like some of the cherished excesses found in the post-3e era. Quibbling about a 2e thief or a 5e rogue hardly seems justifiable.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm #10 for XP received on Enworld and #7 in Laughs received largely to Jeff Albertson. Thanks, Jeff! With your help, I'll soon be at #1!

Except he's like a rising tide lifting all ships. You need to get everyone else to laugh at you.


Tell us a joke.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You envisage a game with a multitude of checks for which no skill applies, yes? Such checks are certainly allowed by the rules, but are they common in your games? Are they your default assumption? That skills are rarely applied? In my games, we try to make things interesting by making skills relevant most of the time, so that players can play to their strengths. Our default assumption is that skills matter most of the time because the DM contrives things that way.

With "common", "default assumption", and "rarely applied", you're putting words in my mouth. Unskilled Intelligence checks don't have to be common for your character concept to run into problems. They just have to happen. You say skills matter "most of the time", and that's a fine way to play, but unless they matter all the time Lefty is still going to have to make some checks at -3.

And skills definitely do not matter for saving throws or intellect devourer attacks or maze spells or any of the myriad other effects for which the rules explicitly say "Intelligence".

Whoa there! Are you saying that you know the designers intentions better than I do? Because if so, stop right there.

The writers state outright that "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." They do not say, "Intelligence doesn't actually measure anything, but the Investigation skill measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason."

Because the premise of this thread is Int 5. And because I don't agree that Int 12 is a better fit.

If the premise of this thread were Str 5, would you be trying to justify making a character with average muscle power?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

edit: there's a more general, even philosophical question floating around this thread like an argumentative ghost: do the rules exist to help you *make* a character, or do they exist to help you *not make* a character? To my mind, parsing the rules in order to disallow a particular character concept should only be done in cases of extraordinary & disruptive powergaming, like some of the cherished excesses found in the post-3e era. Quibbling about a 2e thief or a 5e rogue hardly seems justifiable.

I think if you have a particular character concept in mind, you should opt for a point-buy or base array method so you can ensure you will get the ability scores that describe your character accurately. Rolling scores is for players who like to let some randomness into their concepting, to see their scores and then build their character around them. Both methods help you make a character, just in different ways. Choose the one that's right for you.