D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Hriston]

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.

That's not true. There were several posts up thread where concern was expressed over players putting a low score in Intelligence, and thereby gaining benefits in other abilities. This was used as a justification for limiting the player's ability to roleplay, so they could "face the consequences" of their char-gen choices.

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.

Well, then there'd be no danger of you encountering a roleplay disconnect, would there?

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.

A low-Intelligence score PC doesn't ruin immersion and investment in your character. Having to play your character as if you're a less intelligent player than you really are does.

 

[JonnyP71]

It all seems to boil do to - 'should a PC's ability scores affect how they are roleplayed, or simply be a mechanical tool to define their aptitude at relevant skills'

My opinion - yes, they should definitely affect the roleplaying of the character. If you choose to put the 5 on Int then of course the character should be played with some form of intellectual impairment - and the DM and player should work together to decide what exactly that impairment will be. I do believe that skill proficiencies can be used to alleviate this somewhat, but not completely, as with 5 Int the character IS considerably less intelligent than average.

A low-Intelligence score PC doesn't ruin immersion and investment in your character. Having to play your character as if you're a less intelligent player than you really are does.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true, it can be very enjoyable playing a dimwit - and if a player at our table put a 5 in Int then yes, they would be playing a dimwit... if they want to play a more intelligent character then whoever is DMing will tell them they have to put the 5 somewhere else, and ask them to incorporate the reason for the low stat into their background and personality.

If a player cannot accept that then there is always the dull predictability of point buy or standard array

Abilities scores define the initial base character, skill proficiencies then define what they have learned and experienced in their life.

 

[Maxperson]

You do realize the DM is supposed to decide whether or not an ability check is called for, right? Not just roll ability checks for everything? So your objection on the grounds of "DM fiat" doesn't make a lot of sense. This is DM 101 stuff, man.

It's a problem of your own creation. The game provides intelligence as the same for both frogs and PCs. You are the one reducing it to a bonus or penalty only. It is that reduction that allows the frog to take the IQ test. You created the situation where a frog can take that IQ test. That you are then forced to prevent the frog from taking the test via DM fiat does not fix the problem. It just glosses the problem over.

Uh, no. I am not "equalizing frogs with PCs." They have equal modifiers if they have an equivalent Intelligence score, but that modifier only applies when the DM decides an ability check is required to determine an outcome.

And if a check is called for, both can take it.

I don't need an ability check to tell me the outcome of a bat or frog taking an IQ test or trying to answer a riddle. They fail, period, no roll. A PC capable of adventuring on the other hand is a different story.

They don't fail period. That frog is capable of making the roll to succeed. Therefore, the outcome is in doubt. Declaring that there is no doubt when the math outright proves you wrong is tantamount to cheating. The only reason it's not cheating is that the DM literally cannot cheat. The math itself proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the result of the test is uncertain. The frog can succeed or fail, depending on the roll.

 

[Hriston]

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.

This is why I attempted to frame this debate in terms of differing views on what constitutes roleplay. In your view, roleplay is acting out the behaviour of a pre-scripted character as defined by the character sheet, similar to the example given above where Kevin Kline plays the role of Otto written for him by John Cleese. Otto's choices in the story are all dictated by Cleese's script, and Kline, as Otto's "player", has no input about whether Otto knows a certain piece of information or not. Because of this, Kline really doesn't have the opportunity to actually live through the character of Otto in the world created by Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda, although because Kline is a reasonably good actor he creates a believable facsimile for us in front of the camera. The experience of the actor, however, is very different from the experience of the character as perceived by the audience.

In my view, roleplay, and the whole point of an RPG, is actually getting to live through your character's eyes, ears, and other senses, experiencing the DM's world first hand. Your reactions to that world are your own, and the choices your character makes are made by you in the moment. Applying your full intellect to the challenges presented by the game is the primary way in which you engage with the game-world. If you are prevented from doing so by a prescripted limitation on what you can do or say, then you are not roleplaying as fully as someone not bound by such limitations. "Playing-out" limitations, in this view, is antithetical to "good" roleplay because it reduces the character to an automaton.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not true. There were several posts up thread where concern was expressed over players putting a low score in Intelligence, and thereby gaining benefits in other abilities. This was used as a justification for limiting the player's ability to roleplay, so they could "face the consequences" of their char-gen choices.

Consequences and the attempt to avoid them =/= dump stat is a problem.

Well, then there'd be no danger of you encountering a roleplay disconnect, would there?

The reason I have no danger of encountering this problem is that I play with people who understand that low = low and wouldn't dream of trying to cheat the system and play low as high.

A low-Intelligence score PC doesn't ruin immersion and investment in your character. Having to play your character as if you're a less intelligent player than you really are does.

If the second sentence is true, then it's your fault if you put an intelligence score lower than you are comfortable with on your PC. You don't have the right to cheat the system and play PC int as higher than it is, so if you're not going to be happy with a low score, don't give your PC such a score.

 

[Hriston]

I have excluded no one, which was explained to you by both myself and TheCosmickid. The level of inclusion just needs to match the INT of the PC.

You don't exclude, but have different "levels" of inclusion? I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here.

It's the height of horrible RP to ignore limitations when they become inconvenient.

That's assuming the limitations as you've defined them exist in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

This is why I attempted to frame this debate in terms of differing views on what constitutes roleplay. In your view, roleplay is acting out the behaviour of a pre-scripted character as defined by the character sheet, similar to the example given above where Kevin Kline plays the role of Otto written for him by John Cleese. Otto's choices in the story are all dictated by Cleese's script, and Kline, as Otto's "player", has no input about whether Otto knows a certain piece of information or not. Because of this, Kline really doesn't have the opportunity to actually live through the character of Otto in the world created by Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda, although because Kline is a reasonably good actor he creates a believable facsimile for us in front of the camera. The experience of the actor, however, is very different from the experience of the character as perceived by the audience.

False. I am not arguing for players to be pre-scripted. I am arguing that the limits are there for the players to roleplay out themselves. A player playing an Otto or Mongo has accepted a dimwitted PC by virtue of giving that PC a 5 intelligence. It's then incumbent on the player to roleplay out that choice and not try to cheat the system and avoid it. The player has all kinds of input on how to roleplay the dimwit.

Applying your full intellect to the challenges presented by the game is the primary way in which you engage with the game-world.

Says who? I apply my full intellect to it because I choose not to play characters who are idiots. Were I to place a 5 into intelligence for a PC, I would apply what I best think a 5 to be to the challenges presented by the game, because to do otherwise is to diminish the game for everyone playing it by ignoring the limits of said game.

If you are prevented from doing so by a prescripted limitation on what you can do or say, then you are not roleplaying as fully as someone not bound by such limitations.

Correct. You are roleplaying more fully than someone ignoring the role's limits. Such a person ignoring those limits is a horrible, horrible roleplayer.

"Playing-out" limitations, in this view, is antithetical to "good" roleplay because it reduces the character to an automaton.

100% false. Such a PC is not an automaton. He just has limits.

 

[iserith]

It's a problem of your own creation. The game provides intelligence as the same for both frogs and PCs. You are the one reducing it to a bonus or penalty only. It is that reduction that allows the frog to take the IQ test. You created the situation where a frog can take that IQ test. That you are then forced to prevent the frog from taking the test via DM fiat does not fix the problem. It just glosses the problem over.

And if a check is called for, both can take it.

They don't fail period. That frog is capable of making the roll to succeed. Therefore, the outcome is in doubt. Declaring that there is no doubt when the math outright proves you wrong is tantamount to cheating. The only reason it's not cheating is that the DM literally cannot cheat. The math itself proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the result of the test is uncertain. The frog can succeed or fail, depending on the roll.

Your assumptions appear to be based on the idea that characters or monsters decide to make make checks whenever they like. That is not how the game works. The DM decides when a check is necessary. See DMG page 237:

"When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

• Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
• Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."

It is inappropriate or impossible for a frog to take an IQ test. Therefore, there is no roll - it just fails. Now consider a human character with Int 5, who you say has an IQ of 50 (according to some other game's FAQ, but whatever). It is appropriate and possible for such a create to take an IQ test. Therefore, a roll is appropriate.

You seem to be putting mechanical process ahead of the DM's judgment. The rules clearly state that is not how we should be thinking about the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Your assumptions appear to be based on the idea that characters or monsters decide to make make checks whenever they like. That is not how the game works. The DM decides when a check is necessary. See DMG page 237:

"When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

• Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
• Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."

Correct, and for the frog taking the IQ test, the answer to both is no, so a roll is appropriate. You have decided that intelligence is nothing more or less than a bonus, so the frog and the PC are equally likely to get a roll for an IQ test.

It is inappropriate or impossible for a frog to take an IQ test. Therefore, there is no roll - it just fails.

Not according to your definition of intelligence as just a bonus and nothing more. You created a situation where it is neither inappropriate, nor impossible for said frog. Any such inappropriateness or impossibility must come from something other than a bonus, and you have refused my arguments that there are such other qualities to intelligence.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Either intelligence is ONLY a bonus, in which case you have no just cause to deny the frog his test, or it's not only a bonus, in which case you have been wasting my time by denying my statements that intelligence is more than just a bonus.

Which is it? Is it only a bonus, or is there more to intelligence than just the bonus?

 

[iserith]

Correct, and for the frog taking the IQ test, the answer to both is no, so a roll is appropriate. You have decided that intelligence is nothing more or less than a bonus, so the frog and the PC are equally likely to get a roll for an IQ test.

Uh, no. The answer to the second question is "Yes." It is inappropriate or impossible for the frog to take an IQ test. Common sense should tell you this. If you can't agree that it does, then I suspect you're arguing in bad faith. Because I refuse to believe you've gotten this far in life without at least that much common sense.

Not according to your definition of intelligence as just a bonus and nothing more. You created a situation where it is neither inappropriate, nor impossible for said frog. Any such inappropriateness or impossibility must come from something other than a bonus, and you have refused my arguments that there are such other qualities to intelligence.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Either intelligence is ONLY a bonus, in which case you have no just cause to deny the frog his test, or it's not only a bonus, in which case you have been wasting my time by denying my statements that intelligence is more than just a bonus.

Which is it? Is it only a bonus, or is there more to intelligence than just the bonus?

Intelligence is just a bonus where the mechanics of the game are concerned. Where common sense is concerned and as it relates to the process the DM uses to decide whether or not a roll is appropriate, a frog can't take an IQ test.

Seriously, this is getting comical. If I didn't want to be on the top of the Top Laugh Received list, I'd be giving you a 1000 laughs for this post.