D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[iserith]

There is no rule that says that. You are assuming. What there is, though, is a rule that says intelligence measures reasoning ability, so it's not an assumption that low int = low reasoning ability.

There is a rule that says modifiers apply to related checks. I don't even have to look up a page number for that one. When you're trying to do something that requires mental acuity, the ability to recall, or reason, and that something has an uncertain outcome, the -3 modifier applies to the ability check. It doesn't say how we have to roleplay. That's you, the guy who thinks it reasonable to use dice and mechanics to check to see if a frog can take IQ test.

 

[BoldItalic]

That one made me groan rather than laugh!

Sorry, this is the Int 5 thread. You have to role-play Int 5 and at least guffaw otherwise you're role-playing it wrong. At least, I think that's how the argument goes.

(edit) We're up to #6 now, so I can stop doing these terrible jokes. To get to #5 and overtake the RoD thread we'd need another 20 laughs and I don't think we'll get there anytime soon.

 

[Maxperson]

D&D 5e said it's a -3 modifier to Intelligence-related checks to test the character's mental acuity, ability to recall, and reason.

5e said no such thing. That's you assuming.

It didn't set a standard for how people should roleplay. That's just your preference.

It does set low int = low ability to reason.

What's more, you can't even admit that it's inappropriate and impossible for a frog to take an IQ test. Why should anyone trust your judgment on anything else?

Why would it be impossible according to the rules you put forth? I wouldn't allow it. That's your construct that creates the situation where the frog should be able to.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, this is the Int 5 thread. You have to role-play Int 5 and at least guffaw otherwise you're role-playing it wrong. At least, I think that's how the argument goes.

No no. You have to bray. You can't guffaw until at least a 6.5.

 

[BoldItalic]

No no. You have to bray. You can't guffaw until at least a 6.5.

Braying is what Clebbics do.

(DC 0 Intelligence(Religion) check)

 

[Yardiff]

The rules provide the modifiers, the scores are the bounds in which the player CAN be considering character options, if they want.

A lot of games just deal in modifiers rather than ability scores that determine modifiers. I would say the reason D&D doesn't do this is simply tradition, especially since the rules are silent on how a player must roleplay a character with a particular ability score.

Why dont you go on twitter and ask a couple of the developer how they'd ropleplay particularly low and high mental ability scores and see what they have to say, might give you an indication if tradition was the only reason ability scores were kept in the game.

What difference does it make how they choose to play those scores?

So basically you don't want to know how the developers view the game because when you do it will prove that, as designed, ability scores themselves matter not just the modifiers. The rule book says that an average ability is 10 - 11, so an ability 5 points below that is pretty low.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You keep asking that question as if it means anything at all. It doesn't. For that question to have meaning, I need to be insisting that a 5 int be roleplayed identically. Until then, a low int = low reasoning ability is good enough.

I think you fail to see the meaning of my question because you have failed to understand the difference between the words "low" and "lower." You seem to be treating them as the same, while they are not.

In this case, I can play a 5 Intelligence with lower reasoning than I would play a 10 Intelligence, even if it is to an immeasurably small degree such that while I am aware of the difference thanks to knowing my thought process on each matter, others might not see any difference at all.

But you seem, judging by your various posts before and after this point in the thread, as though if you were at the table with this character as another player or the DM you would have issue that I was not playing the character as having low reasoning. You heavily imply throughout the thread some objective, rather than comparative, measure.

 

[Hriston]

If you establish a fact about your character, say that he hates spaghetti and loves flowers, then suddenly because you just feel like it and with no real reason behind it, you suddenly have your character love spaghetti and hate flowers, that would be bad RP. It's the same with low int. By virtue of giving your PC a low int, you agreed to roleplay a low int PC. If you then decide to roleplay him as high int, you are engaging in bad RP. People can in fact roleplay badly, and roleplaying against established limits is one of the ways to engage in bad RP.

I agree that by creating and playing my low-Intelligence score PC I have agreed to create and play a PC with a low Intelligence score. I disagree, however, that my character's Intelligence score establishes, for instance, that my character is bad at solving puzzles, or any other fictional action that I can declare my character as taking. If you call for an Intelligence check to resolve an action I've declared for my character, I will have a penalty on my die roll. If I succeed, however, I will have established for the time being that my character's abilities are adequate to meet the challenge, no matter what you think my character's limitations are.

 

[iserith]

So basically you don't want to know how the developers view the game because when you do it will prove that, as designed, ability scores themselves matter not just the modifiers. The rule book says that an average ability is 10 - 11, so an ability 5 points below that is pretty low.

Yeah, 5 is lower than 10. It doesn't mean you have to roleplay any particular way, even if the designers tell you how they play at their own tables. It will mean that you have a -3 modifier to your Intelligence-related checks whereas the character with Intelligence 10 does not. How you choose to portray that is up to you.

 

[iserith]

5e said no such thing. That's you assuming.

"After assigning your ability scores, determine your ability modifiers using the Ability Scores and Modifiers table." (Basic Rules, page 7)

"Because ability modifiers affect almost every attack roll, ability check, and saving throw, ability modifiers come up in play more often than their associated scores." (Basic Rules, page 57)

"The three main rolls of the game—the ability check, the saving throw, and the attack roll—rely on the six ability scores. The book’s introduction describes the basic rule behind these rolls: roll a d20, add an ability modifier derived from one of the six ability scores, and compare the total to a target number." (Basic Rules, page 57)

"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class... To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier." (Basic Rules, page 58)

"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." (Basic Rules, page 61)

So when I say "D&D 5e said it's a -3 modifier to Intelligence-related checks to test the character's mental acuity, ability to recall, and reason..." I'm right. And when you sit there and claim that the rules say that:

It does set low int = low ability to reason.

And in the same breath say that my absolutely correct paraphrase of the above-quoted rules is just me "assuming," you are not arguing in good faith. It doesn't take an IQ-test taking frog to see it either.

Why would it be impossible according to the rules you put forth? I wouldn't allow it. That's your construct that creates the situation where the frog should be able to.

You are confused. In this game, the DM determines if an ability check is appropriate (DMG, page 237). That I do not force players to play - or only play with players who play - Int 5 a specific way ("specific" as compared to playing it however they like) does not mean frogs get to make Intelligence checks to take IQ tests. It's silly to even have to explain this to you. I don't know where you're even coming up with this stuff anymore. But I do know why.