D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[BoldItalic]

I've read this thread out aloud to Lefty and he's dismissed it as "a load of sages talking rubbish".

As a reminder, he is Int 5, Wis 12, Insight +3, Investigation +1, Perception +3, Urchin background.

Is his comment about right for his character sheet data? Or is he being just a little too smart and getting a little too near the truth?

BTW, this thread is now #7. We only need another 3 or 4 laughs to get to #6. No cheating, now, only click laugh on funny posts.

 

[iserith]

On a mathematical note, this is a potentially misleading statement. 15% of the total possibility space is not the same as 15% of the probability of success. The difference between, say, 11/20 and 8/20 is not 15%; 8/20 is about 27% less than 11/20. And the difference gets bigger as the probability gets smaller. At the extreme end, you do automatically fail checks with a DC of 18 or higher. (And inspiration can't help you there.)

I'm not a math guy, but even so, player skill still helps. Seeking out, earning, and allocating resources as necessary to improve your odds of success is smart play. There is no denying 15 Int Sherlock is mathematically likely to be more successful just by the numbers than Int 5 Sherlock.

I don't know what you expect me to say here. It's a free planet. If you play this way, WotC isn't going to bust down your door, break up your game, and confiscate your books. You can ignore the dictionary meaning of the word "intelligence" and interpret that ability score as the character's shoe size if you want. But the rules are written in a way that assumes "intelligence" means intelligence, so if you play a different way while still using these rules you are going to run into friction between your character's concept and his performance. Yes, you can play this way, because nobody's going to stop you. But in your words:

Not smart play. But not "wrong" play by any standard set forth by the rules. And that's the assertion I'm arguing against. If you're not making that assertion, then we have no quarrel.

 

[iserith]

Yes it does. It is not a specific way, but it is a fact that low int = low reasoning in 5e. If you give yourself a low int, you have agreed to that.

You agreed to a -3 modifier to Intelligence-related checks. How you roleplay that is up to you, the player, and no way is wrong by any standard the rules set forth.

 

[iserith]

The game has established that a 5 int = low ability to reason. If you choose to play a 5 int, you are agreeing with the game that this is true. It doesn't force you to act in a specific way, but you do need to roleplay it as low.

"Low" is a specific way as compared to "acting however you like."

 

[Hriston]

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

Okay, so what then is the problem with putting a low score into Intelligence without any negative consequences to RP?

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.

This isn't meant as an insult, but I'm wondering how high your players, or anyone's, are really capable of playing their characters intellectually. I mean, unless you actually are playing with Einstein, what advantage do players get from just using their brains?

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.

It isn't cheating the system to play an Intelligence 5 PC as someone who is capable of solving a puzzle. The rules do not say that you need to have a certain Intelligence score to solve a puzzle.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I'm sorry, but how is there a significant distinction between those two things?

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.

Does that input involve things like solving puzzles? Because if so, then we may not have much to disagree on.

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.

Where in the game does it say an Intelligence 5 PC is limited in solving puzzles?

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

You are free to have your own taste in roleplay, but the game does not impose any limits on solving puzzles, so they can't be ignored.

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

Being free to "play out" the limitations you've set for my character according to your preference for a certain type of roleplay just doesn't feel like freedom to me.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But not "wrong" play by any standard set forth by the rules.

If the definition "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason" isn't a "standard", then what is it?

"Low" is a specific way as compared to "acting however you like."

And "martial combat" is a specific way as compared to "acting however you like", so is the fighter class placing unjustified restrictions on your roleplay too?

 

[BoldItalic]

Another joke:

"Hello!" said the Paladin to the cow.
The cow 'lowed back.
"Remarkable," said the Paladin, "A talking cow!"
"Prithee, madam," quoth the Paladin, "What is your IQ?"
*Low*

DC 10 Intelligence(Nature) check for that one. You have to know that cattle low, otherwise you don't get the joke.

 

[pemerton]

You can look at what the game views as 2, 3, 4, and 5 int in order to rate your PC. A Bat has a 2 int, so if your PC also has a 2, he is as dumb as a bat. A cat has a 3. A baboon I believe has a 5. And so on.

It means they are equally intelligent. Unless you can show me a rule stating that intelligence is somehow different for a baboon or frog.

A giant lizard has DEX 12. Does that mean that my 12 DEX fighter can't pick locks or use chopsticks? (A giant lizard isn't dexterous enough to do either).

An eagle has a STR 6. A giant rat has a STR 7. Does this mean that my STR 5 wizard has not better prospect than one of those animals when it comes to lifting, pushing, breaking etc? Can eagles in the D&D world carry 90 lb (which is about 4 times the weight of even the largest eagle)?

You can't have it both ways. If you think that a STR 6 eagle can carry 4 to 10 times its own weight (depending on species and individual variation), then clearly eagles in D&D are very different from eagles in the real world. And then there is no reason to think that frogs and baboons mightn't be different too. (Animals in fairy stories, after all, can often talk and reason.)

For my part, though, I think it's always been obvious that when it comes to non-human creatures, the translation of ability scores is a rough-and-ready exercise at best. (Runequest, one of the earliest games to rate all creatures in ability scores, tackled this with its contrast between Fixed and non-Fixed INT.)

 

[pemerton]

DC 10 Intelligence(Nature) check for that one. You have to know that cattle low, otherwise you don't get the joke.

That one made me groan rather than laugh!