D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[iserith]

Sure. But you're not going to avoid all of them. (Or, if you are, then why did you spend US$50 on a D&D book when you could be freeform roleplaying with your friends for not a cent?) And when an ability check does come up, at least your high-Int character will actually be likely to succeed at the tasks that your concept says he's supposed to be good at.

The higher the player skill, the less ability checks one can expect in my experience. It's true when an ability check does come up, you'll be 15% less successful on average than a 10 or 11 Intelligence character. Player skill through application of resources like Inspiration can mitigate that as well.

What's wrong with advising the player to pick ability scores that fit his or her concept? The simplest and most reliable way to have a bonus on an Intelligence check is to have a high Intelligence score.

Because the players rolled their scores. That was the original situation proposed in the OP, right?

It's not just how I choose to perceive it. If Watson for whatever reason isn't in the room, then dumb-Sherlock is useless.

Far from useless. Player skill matters and can make a difference. How many times do you expect to be rolling Intelligence checks anyway?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Here's a pretty clear statement that the rules of the game limit the roleplaying choices of a player of a low-Intelligence character vis-a-vis attempting to solve riddles.

Maxperson never said he couldn't try. Otto would definitely try. It's just that if Otto's player is rolling for the answer, then he'll fail most of the time. And if Otto's player bypasses the rolling by being a good riddle-solver himself, then after a while of this it's going to seem like he's not actually interested in roleplaying an Int 5 character, since presumably if he were roleplaying an Int 5 character he'd have a failure rate in the same ballpark as what's predicted by the dice. The characters certainly don't know the difference between their players solving riddles and rolling dice, so the two methods should not have wildly different outcomes.

 

[kalil]

I would take the Sage background for to Int 5 character, you get fantastic milage out of the Researcher trait when you keep failing you knowledge checks.

 

[Hriston]

100% is.

No, it's good roleplaying. Players should be trying to solve the problems they encounter in the game. It would be bad roleplaying to not care when your character's life depends on solving a riddle.

Which is NOT anything I've ever said is a bad thing. We are not talking about the PC thinking he's helping, but doing a bad job at it. We're talking about the PC actually being really good at puzzles only because the player is good at them in defiance of a low int.

Why do you present puzzles to your players if you don't want them to try and solve them?

Just forget strength. It's a really piss poor example since it has hard numbers which force weakness. It's the mental abilities which lend themselves to the sort of roleplaying abuses being described here.

The mental stats have hard numbers which force weakness as well. If, as a DM, you don't make them count by calling for Int, Wis, and Cha checks when appropriate, who's to blame when they become dump-stats?

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's good roleplaying. Players should be trying to solve the problems they encounter in the game. It would be bad roleplaying to not care when your character's life depends on solving a riddle.

Eh, no. Roleplaying doesn't become good just because you want it to be. In fact, roleplaying badly in order to gain advantage for your PC is one of the worst RP sins you can commit. The PC's "life" being at risk does not justify bad roleplay. Also, caring about your PC's life has absolutely nothing to do with roleplaying. You can care and roleplay badly, and not care at all and roleplay well.

Why do you present puzzles to your players if you don't want them to try and solve them?

Why are you asking a question that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Because the players rolled their scores. That was the original situation proposed in the OP, right?

Yes. The point here is to demonstrate that not every character concept is equally appropriate for every score. Imagine that the players instead rolled for their flaws, and this player got the flaw "I am unintelligent". Clearly the dice would be telling him to pick a different character concept than that of the great detective, right? Well, rolling for ability scores is just rolling for flaws old school. Literally. An Intelligence of 5 is the flaw "I am unintelligent." (The only difference is that the Intelligence score actually has the mechanical ramifications to back up the assertion.) So if a player rolls an Int 5, then the dice are again telling him to pick a different character concept than that of the great detective.

Whenever you roll for a part of character creation, whether it be ability scores or traits/bonds/flaws or race/class or anything else, then you are inescapably giving the dice some control over your character concept. If you have a definite character concept in your head beforehand and then struggle against the dice results to implement it, that's a sign you shouldn't have been rolling; you should have opted for a different character creation method where you have the control. When rolling, the key is not to struggle against it, but rather go with the flow and see where it takes you.

And I don't want to play mind-reader on the OP too much, but I think this premise is implicit in it. "What would you do if you rolled a 5 for an ability score?" seems to be asking for character concepts to go with that flow. At any rate, I am quite confident that it is not asking for the answer you gave, "Apply a -3 modifier to ability checks related to that ability score." Because if that's all there is to say, then that's the end of the conversation, and what a boring conversation it was.

Far from useless. Player skill matters and can make a difference. How many times do you expect to be rolling Intelligence checks anyway?

Can I bypass a Strength check by demonstrating to the DM that I can kick down a door?

 

[Hriston]

Why is this suddenly the DM's problem?

If the DM is so concerned with Intelligence becoming a dump-stat that s/he feels the need to police players' roleplaying, s/he should instead set up the proper challenges to make Intelligence matter.

A problem for which your proposed solution may require some judicious mind reading?

It doesn't require mind reading, just some inventiveness. This is fantasy after all. It shouldn't be too hard for no one at the table to have ever heard of your plot elements when you're the one making them up.

And even granting the DM's telepathic abilities are up to the task, do you really think a player knowing a lot about London (or Waterdeep) should discourage him from running his adventures there?

No, of course not, but make it your own.

Isn't it easier just to take the advice that's right there in the DMG, and keep player and character knowledge distinct?

That's a good idea in general, but players shouldn't have to lobotomize themselves to avoid knowing too much. Immersion and investment in their characters are important too.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM is so concerned with Intelligence becoming a dump-stat that s/he feels the need to police players' roleplaying, s/he should instead set up the proper challenges to make Intelligence matter.

Is "dump stat" you're new counter mantra? If so, you can just drop it. Being a dump stat has nothing to do with any argument that has been made here so far other than by you. I'm certainly not worried about int being a dump stat. Any player that tried that would show himself to have the same 5 int the PC has.

That's a good idea in general, but players shouldn't have to lobotomize themselves to avoid knowing too much. Immersion and investment in their characters are important too.

Then they should take better care with their stat decisions. If immersion and investment in the character is so important that having a stupid PC will ruin it, it would be stupid of them to create a dumb PC.

 

[Hriston]

Maxperson never said he couldn't try. Otto would definitely try. It's just that if Otto's player is rolling for the answer, then he'll fail most of the time. And if Otto's player bypasses the rolling by being a good riddle-solver himself, then after a while of this it's going to seem like he's not actually interested in roleplaying an Int 5 character, since presumably if he were roleplaying an Int 5 character he'd have a failure rate in the same ballpark as what's predicted by the dice. The characters certainly don't know the difference between their players solving riddles and rolling dice, so the two methods should not have wildly different outcomes.

If the player isn't actually trying then s/he isn't actually roleplaying. S/he's just going through the motions.

You need to make the decisions for your character, not you only dumber. That's an impediment to roleplay.

An auto-success is just that. It has very little to do with what happens when there's uncertainty.

 

[Maxperson]

If the player isn't actually trying then s/he isn't actually roleplaying. S/he's just going through the motions.

You need to make the decisions for your character, not you only dumber. That's an impediment to roleplay.

I love how you declare that roleplay is an impediment to roleplay. Roleplaying a limitation is not an impediment to roleplay, no matter how much you claim otherwise. In fact, the only impediment to roleplay is the failure to roleplay out a limit that exists, because then you aren't roleplaying, you're avoiding roleplay.