D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

An obvious solution would be not to concern yourself with the ability scores of characters other than your own then. This way it's in your control, rather than hoping someone else plays in the manner you prefer where ability scores are concerned.

It's not just ability scores. And the "obvious solution" is to play with people who will play stats appropriately, not those who will bend over backwards to avoid playing the consequences of their stat choices.

Slippery Slope Fallacy?

Not even close. It's just that the kind of person who wants to avoid playing consequences for things isn't going to stop at int.

 

[iserith]

It's not just ability scores. And the "obvious solution" is to play with people who will play stats appropriately, not those who will bend over backwards to avoid playing the consequences of their stat choices.

Sure, you can seek out people who think like you, but naturally that cuts down your options. I, however, have no such issue. I just don't care about or even look at other PCs' ability scores. I thus have a much greater amount of people with whom I can have fun playing D&D. I find that to be a better solution.

I probably did care about how people played their ability scores at some point, but I left notion that in the past with last century's games.

Not even close. It's just that the kind of person who wants to avoid playing consequences for things isn't going to stop at int.

Pretty sure it's a slippery slope fallacy. And in any case, such blanket statements are easily disproven with one example to the contrary. I'm not sure why you think your argument benefits from such a fallacious generalization.

Also, the consequences of playing a character with an Intelligence of 5 is a -3 penalty on Intelligence checks. I'm not sure what other consequences you think there are, but that is the only one the rules mandate.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, you can seek out people who think like you, but naturally that cuts down your options.

Not true. It increases my options by giving me the option to play D&D. I have no option to play with people who refuse to play stats appropriately and/or who engage in other such ridiculousness. I do have the option to play the game with those who do. I refuse to play in a game that I will not enjoy due to absurd disconnects caused by people who just want to avoid consequences of their choices.

Pretty sure it's a slippery slope fallacy. And in any case, such blanket statements are easily disproven with one example to the contrary. I'm not sure why you think your argument benefits from such a fallacious generalization.

No. It didn't even come close to a Slippery Slope. A Slippery Slope is X causes Y, causes Z, and so on, where each successive result is more and more ridiculous. I didn't do that. What you did, though, was engage in an Argument from Fallacy. You can't just call something a fallacy and stop without engaging in a fallacy yourself. Whether you think something is a Strawman, Slippery Slope, or whatever other fallacy, you still have to respond to the argument.

 

[iserith]

Not true. It increases my options by giving me the option to play D&D. I have no option to play with people who refuse to play stats appropriately and/or who engage in other such ridiculousness. I do have the option to play the game with those who do. I refuse to play in a game that I will not enjoy due to absurd disconnects caused by people who just want to avoid consequences of their choices.

You still haven't said what those consequences are. I know of only one... a -3 penalty to Intelligence checks and saves.

No. It didn't even come close to a Slippery Slope. A Slippery Slope is X causes Y, causes Z, and so on, where each successive result is more and more ridiculous. I didn't do that. What you did, though, was engage in an Argument from Fallacy. You can't just call something a fallacy and stop without engaging in a fallacy yourself. Whether you think something is a Strawman, Slippery Slope, or whatever other fallacy, you still have to respond to the argument.

Debating such labels is a distraction from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say, you are saying that if someone doesn't play an Intelligence 5 in the manner you prefer, he or she is going to be playing in other ways that annoy you. That doesn't necessarily follow and should be self-evident in my view.

 

[Maxperson]

You still haven't said what those consequences are. I know of only one... a -3 penalty to Intelligence checks and saves.

Low intelligence = low reasoning ability. Period. That there is only one mechanic attached does not make that mechanic the only part of intelligence.

Debating such labels[/URL] is a distraction from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say, you are saying that if someone doesn't play an Intelligence 5 in the manner you prefer, he or she is going to be playing in other ways that annoy you. That doesn't necessarily follow and should be self-evident in my view.

If you don't want to debate those labels, don't bring up those labels. If you are going to use them improperly, I will explain your mistake and how to properly use them.

 

[iserith]

Low intelligence = low reasoning ability. Period. That there is only one mechanic attached does not make that mechanic the only part of intelligence.

Nothing about the rules requires anyone to roleplay a particular way. There are no consequences to having an Intelligence 5 other than the -3 modifier to Intelligence checks and saves. When the player has the character undertake a fictional action with an uncertain outcome, the character is 15% less likely to succeed than a character with a 10 or 11 Intelligence. The player is not required to abstain from answering riddles, coming up with plans, or the like. They are not roleplaying "wrong" by doing so.

If you don't want to debate those labels, don't bring up those labels. If you are going to use them improperly, I will explain your mistake and how to properly use them.

I provided a link to the definition in a previous post and will let that stand as proof that you're engaging in the aforementioned fallacy. If another fallacy better applies to the fallacious argument you presented, then I welcome someone to suggest what it is if they are so inclined. The bottom line is that just because someone doesn't roleplay Intelligence 5 as you would prefer doesn't mean they'll be engaged in other things that annoy you. That does not necessarily follow.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing about the rules requires anyone to roleplay a particular way. There are no consequences to having an Intelligence 5 other than the -3 modifier to Intelligence checks and saves. When the player has the character undertake a fictional action with an uncertain outcome, the character is 15% less likely to succeed than a character with a 10 or 11 Intelligence. The player is not required to abstain from answering riddles, coming up with plans, or the like. They are not roleplaying "wrong" by doing so.

You can keep repeating that until you are blue in the face. It won't change low int = low reasoning ability into anything else.

I provided a link to the definition in a previous post and will let that stand as proof that you're engaging in the aforementioned fallacy. If another fallacy better applies to the fallacious argument you presented, then I welcome someone to suggest what it is if they are so inclined. The bottom line is that just because someone doesn't roleplay Intelligence 5 as you would prefer doesn't mean they'll be engaged in other things that annoy you. That does not necessarily follow.

Slipperly Slope doesn't apply just because you want there to be a fallacy present. I educated you on what a Slippery Slope was and your link doesn't change that. Especially since your link supported me and showed that I didn't engage in one.

 

[BoldItalic]

It proves no such thing. We know for a fact that a baboon and a PC that have the same int score are equally intelligent.

No we don't. We only know that they have the same Int score. You are conflating two different uses of the same word and pretending that they are the same. I am distinguishing them. I am distinguishing "intelligence" in the colloquial sense from "Intelligence" as a game score.

If roleplaying a slug or baboon as a genius isn't good, then the same applies to a PC.

If you work out the formal logic of that, it turns into "all PCs must be role-played as baboons". I don't think either of us would agree to that. Try this instead: "If it is good to role-play a genius PC as a genius, then the same applies to baboons and slugs."

I reject your notion that skills = intelligence.

Yes, you've already said that and I understand that you reject it.

RAW does not support you. By RAW, only intelligence = intelligence.

On the contrary. Nowhere does it say that only the Int score measures what is colloquially called "intelligence". Nowhere. Indeed, it specifically says the opposite. It says, for example, that when you make deductions based on evidence, you make an Investigation check. You cannot therefore argue that Investigation skill has nothing to do with making deductions. Are you then going to assert that making deductions is not an aspect of what is colloquially called intelligence?

What you have done is come up with a ridiculous corner case scenario and have fixated on it in order to try and make it out as something other than a corner case.

A single counter-example is sufficient to break a generalisation. Dismissing the counter-example as a corner case in order to try to shore up your belief in the generalisation is a common enough mistake but that doesn't stop it being a mistake.

A delightful mixed metaphor has just occurred to me: The ridicule is on the other foot

 

[iserith]

You can keep repeating that until you are blue in the face. It won't change low int = low reasoning ability into anything else.

"Low reasoning ability" as reflected by the -3 modifier when the player has the character engage in a fictional act involving reasoning that has an uncertain outcome. The rules do not say how the player must roleplay. In fact, in the section of the rules about roleplaying, it says that the player determines how the character acts and thinks with no reference to the ability score. So players can choose to play dumb or choose otherwise. Neither way is objectively wrong by the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

No we don't. We only know that they have the same Int score. You are conflating two different uses of the same word and pretending that they are the same. I am distinguishing them. I am distinguishing "intelligence" in the colloquial sense from "Intelligence" as a game score.

No you aren't. RAW does not use the word in different ways. It uses it in one single way.......intelligence and lists numbers for it. You are the one fabricating a second way to "distinguish" intelligence for an edition that does not do that.

RAW shows a baboon as being just as intelligent as a PC with the same score.

If you work out the formal logic of that, it turns into "all PCs must be role-played as baboons". I don't think either of us would agree to that. Try this instead: "If it is good to role-play a genius PC as a genius, then the same applies to baboons and slugs."

I don't think logic works the way you think it works. Nothing I said suggested that all PCs have to be roleplayed as baboons.

On the contrary. Nowhere does it say that only the Int score measures what is colloquially called "intelligence". Nowhere. Indeed, it specifically says the opposite.

It doesn't have to state it. All it has to do is put forth one and only one type of intelligence score, and one is all the game gives. It says very clearly what intelligence measures and it does not differentiate between baboons and PCs.

It says, for example, that when you make deductions based on evidence, you make an Investigation check. You cannot therefore argue that Investigation skill has nothing to do with making deductions. Are you then going to assert that making deductions is not an aspect of what is colloquially called intelligence?

That doesn't make investigation = intelligence, though. A skill modified by intelligence does not make that skill = intelligence.

A single counter-example is sufficient to break a generalisation. Dismissing the counter-example as a corner case in order to try to shore up your belief in the generalisation is a common enough mistake but that doesn't stop it being a mistake.

Exceptions to a rule do not disprove the rule.