D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[TheCosmicKid]

And how does the game measure it exactly? With modifiers to a d20, not with mandates about how one must roleplay the character as some might suggest.

Which is why I've been focusing on how that modifier reflects the character's capabilities by determining his performance on in-game tasks, and not dictating how one must roleplay by fiat. If you're responding to me, please address my case, not the case of a nonspecific "some".

 

[BoldItalic]

As always this is just my opinion.

Maybe I'm just dense but every 'argument' you use to 'prove' that your way of character building is just as viable as mine just 'proves' to me how much you don't want to roleplaying low mental ability scores even when you give your character one.

It's not that. You're misinterpreting my motives.

I'm playing devils advocate. I do that sometimes.

People are so certain that Low Int automatically equates to "dim" regardless of skills (and I speculate that this is a hold-over from a previous edition) that I'm presenting a counter view, where a character has low Int but is not "dim" because he does have skills. Just because it adds a possible answer to the OP's question that is different from the popular one. There's no point in agreeing with everyone else and saying "Oh, yeah, low Int, role play it dim" because after a few people have already said it, saying it again adds nothing useful to the thread.

So I'm advocating role-playing according to the combined results of abilities and skills, just because it's a different viewpoint. And one that I believe is valid.

I've been told that it's wrong and I mustn't role play that way. I've been told that it's illogical. People have put up all kinds of arguments to rubbish the idea. That's okay. It's stimulated me to develop the idea even further.

Now, your argument that (and I paraphrase) I have shady motives for defending the idea and that therefore the idea must be bad, is doubly fallacious. In the first place, you are guessing my motives and guessing them wrongly, so your premise is false, and in the second place it's a non-sequitur anyway.

You're in good company, though. Politicians do it all the time.

 

[Yardiff]

Allow me to respond with an opinion of my own.

Every argument for why a low ability score can't be expressed through only some of its facets feels like an arbitrary limit on the creativity of character creation. Take Int as an example. Int measures mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill. The idea that a low int must mean that all of those facets are equally low removes, unnecessarily in my opinion, the possibility of a bright character with a just absolutely abysmal memory, like occasionally forgets his own name memory.

Your talking about the Absent Minded Professor trope, in all cases I've seen of this its been a high int guy with a quirk.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Your talking about the Absent Minded Professor trope, in all cases I've seen of this its been a high int guy with a quirk.

Well, the absent-minded professor is really good at remembering some things, like obscure languages or star charts or the first couple hundred digits of pi. That's where the high Intelligence is. If the character's memory is so bad across the board that he's bad at math and lore and all the other things Intelligence governs, then sure, he's got low Intelligence.

 

[Maxperson]

Allow me to respond with an opinion of my own.

Every argument for why a low ability score can't be expressed through only some of its facets feels like an arbitrary limit on the creativity of character creation. Take Int as an example. Int measures mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill. The idea that a low int must mean that all of those facets are equally low removes, unnecessarily in my opinion, the possibility of a bright character with a just absolutely abysmal memory, like occasionally forgets his own name memory.

That's completely false. I can play an 18 int PC as forgetful about things if I want. Traits and flaws can be added to the PC and roleplayed. I don't need to play a low stat as if it were a higher one in order to do that.

 

[MechaPilot]

That's completely false. I can play an 18 int PC as forgetful about things if I want. Traits and flaws can be added to the PC and roleplayed. I don't need to play a low stat as if it were a higher one in order to do that.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, because I never said you had to do anything. I said that in my opinion forcing a stat to apply equally to all facets of the stat interferes with creative expression. It logically follows that if an 18 Int must apply equally to all facets of the Int stat (mental acuity, information recall, and reasoning), then the character cannot be forgetful because Int explicitly covers information recall. If the 18 Int character can be forgetful, then Int cannot be required to apply equally to all facets of the stat because Int explicitly covers information recall.

You do not get to have your cake and eat it too. Either you can elect to apply a stat score to select facets of the stat, making a high Int character forgetful despite Int explicitly covering information recall, opening the door for making a similar low Int character by the same rationale, or you must apply the int score equally across all facets of the stat and therefore cannot have a forgetful high Int character.

And here are some of your own statements. Change "ability to reason" to "information recall" and you are refuting your own argument that you can have a forgetful high Int character.

The 5e rules tell you that low int is a low ability to reason. If you then roleplay a high ability to reason, but with a penalty to rolls, you are doing it wrong.

The 5e rules tell you that high int is a high ability to recall info. If you then roleplay a low ability to recall info, but with a bonus to rolls, you are doing it wrong.

It says very clearly that int = the ability to reason. Therefore, high int = a high ability to reason and low int = a low ability to reason. You can go against that if you like, but you're going against the rules if you play a low int as a high ability to reason with a penalty.

It says very clearly that int = the ability to recall info. Therefore, high int = a high ability to recall info and low int = a low ability to recall info. You can go against that if you like, but you're going against the rules if you play a high int as a low ability to recall info with a bonus.

The rules say that int = ability to reason. The only rational way to read that is low int = low ability to reason, and high int = high ability to reason. Anything else is just an excuse to cheese the system and not have to engage in the consequences of your choice of a low int.

The rules say that int = ability to reacall info. The only rational way to read that is low int = low ability to recall info, and high int = high ability to recall info. Anything else is just an excuse to cheese the system and not have to engage in the consequences of your choice of a high int.

I don't have to. Low int = low ability to reason. It's clearly lower than average, so a player running around with a low int PC reasoning everything out and solving all the riddles is roleplaying badly. If you're going to play low int PC as highly intelligent with a penalty, you are clearly doing it wrong. I don't need an exact number to be able to say that confidently and correctly.

I don't have to. High int = high ability to recall info. It's clearly higher than average, so a player running around with a high int PC not memorizing everything and not remembering answers to the riddles is roleplaying badly. If you're going to play high int PC as forgetful with a bonus, you are clearly doing it wrong. I don't need an exact number to be able to say that confidently and correctly.

The rules are clear on what a low int means, and it does in fact mean a low ability to reason. It doesn't "require" you to play that way because you should already know how and not try to run it as the opposite of what it is.

The rules are clear on what a high int means, and it does in fact mean a high ability to recall info. It doesn't "require" you to play that way because you should already know how and not try to run it as the opposite of what it is.

No. While it does have other facets, it always includes reasoning as one of them, so low int will always equal a low ability to reason. There is no language that says you get to pick and choose which facets listed apply to you, so they all apply.

No. While it does have other facets, it always includes information recall as one of them, so high int will always equal a high ability to recall info. There is no language that says you get to pick and choose which facets listed apply to you, so they all apply.

Edited to pile on some more:

The rules say low int = low ability to reason. The rest you can figure out.

The rules say high int = high ability to recall info. The rest you can figure out.

There is no ability to pick and choose which aspects of int are below average. Low int = low at all of them.

There is no ability to pick and choose which aspects of int are above average. High int = high at all of them.

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.


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.

If you accept that int measures ability to recall info, then high int MUST = high ability to recall info 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.


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

That is wrong. I'll quote it again for you.


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


Note that there is no optional language there. Intelligence measures those three things. Period. It doesn't say "or" the ability to reason. It's "and" the ability to reason. It also doesn't say "can measure". It says very clearly "intelligence measures."


Not by RAW.

That is wrong. I'll quote it again for you.


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


Note that there is no optional language there. Intelligence measures those three things. Period. It doesn't say "or" the ability to recall info. It's "and" the ability to recall info. It also doesn't say "can measure". It says very clearly "intelligence measures."


Not by RAW.

 

[Yardiff]

It's not that. You're misinterpreting my motives.

I'm playing devils advocate. I do that sometimes.

People are so certain that Low Int automatically equates to "dim" regardless of skills (and I speculate that this is a hold-over from a previous edition) that I'm presenting a counter view, where a character has low Int but is not "dim" because he does have skills. Just because it adds a possible answer to the OP's question that is different from the popular one. There's no point in agreeing with everyone else and saying "Oh, yeah, low Int, role play it dim" because after a few people have already said it, saying it again adds nothing useful to the thread.

So I'm advocating role-playing according to the combined results of abilities and skills, just because it's a different viewpoint. And one that I believe is valid.

I've been told that it's wrong and I mustn't role play that way. I've been told that it's illogical. People have put up all kinds of arguments to rubbish the idea. That's okay. It's stimulated me to develop the idea even further.

Now, your argument that (and I paraphrase) I have shady motives for defending the idea and that therefore the idea must be bad, is doubly fallacious. In the first place, you are guessing my motives and guessing them wrongly, so your premise is false, and in the second place it's a non-sequitur anyway.

You're in good company, though. Politicians do it all the time.

I calls'em as I sees'em. Creative rules interpretation is creative rules interpretation.

 

[Yardiff]

'Stuff'

The point you were trying to make? All I could was that you were agreeing with Maxperson.


And theres a big difference in giving your character a quirk and ignoring an ability score all together.

 

[MechaPilot]

The point you were trying to make? All I could was that you were agreeing with Maxperson.


And theres a big difference in giving your character a quirk and ignoring an ability score all together.

I feel the point was pretty clear, but I'll sum it up for you.

The point is this: If you want to say that other people are roleplaying wrong by not applying their low Int score to all of the listed facets of the Int attribute (like Max very clearly is saying), and you want to claim that you absolutely have to apply it to all of those facets with no exceptions in order to be following the rules (again, as Max has very clearly said), then you don't get to selectively apply your high Int score without hypocritically violating your own statements. Calling it a "quirk" doesn't negate that. To paraphrase you, "it seems an awful lot like someone's bending over backwards so they don't have to roleplay their ability scores."

 

[Yardiff]

I was wrong about the absent minded professor being a good example. Absent minded isnt memory loss its inattention which is wis.