D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Hriston]

I don't think anyone here has expressed a concern with Intelligence being a dump stat. That's not what this conversation is about.

I guess I misinterpreted what someone said. If that's the case, and I'm not arguing that it isn't, I'm sort of wondering why there's so much concern about there being "consequences" for having a low score, as if this gives the character a benefit elsewhere that needs to be paid for.

Make up a new and different London Underground? Why? And wouldn't that break verisimilitude, especially for the players who are familiar with London?

Well, sure. It sounds much easier for the DM than attempting to replicate every detail of the Underground as it is in real life. Or you could just assume that what the player knows is known by the character. Then it isn't metagaming.

Now you're just being melodramatic.

I find the deliberate separation of in-character from out-of-character knowledge breaks immersion and that it's better for the DM to use novel approaches or make such details have little bearing on the game, but that's just my preference.

This is in response to a situation I expressly described as being an auto-success for one player and a roll for another even though the difference is indiscernible in universe. So no, clearly auto-successes and uncertainty can have a lot of overlap.

Is it indiscernable? I don't think so. The situation you presented is that a riddle is part of the adventure, correct? Now, as a DM, I don't see what the point of putting a riddle in my adventure would be if I was just going to give the players (or their characters) the answer if they roll high enough on an Intelligence check. A riddle in an adventure is there for the players to solve, so the choice isn't going to be between auto-success or roll. The choice is between auto-success (because you solved the riddle) or auto-failure (because you didn't). Now, if Otto's player declares that he's searching for clues that will point him towards an answer or trying to recall some piece of information that will do the same, then his Intelligence score will come into play through an Intelligence check, but that's not the same as solving the riddle. Putting an entry fee on solving the riddle by saying, "Your Intelligence must be at least X for you to solve this riddle or you're roleplaying badly," excludes a player from fully participating in an encounter which presumably was put there for the fun of the group. Not letting a player participate doesn't sound fun to me and neither does "Roll to see if your character solves the riddle." My point is the condition for auto-success (i.e. producing the answer to the riddle) is completely different from the uncertainty that requires a roll (searching for clues) and will produce different results, that is the players will still have to solve the riddle themselves. At least that's how I do it.

 

[iserith]

Ok I get why there are those who don't want to set a standard for the various ability numbers. If there isn't a standard then you can say that X is just as good as any other number and thus you can avoid having to do what you consider hard, roleplay a particularly 'low' mental ability score.

I'm not against setting a standard - at the table. I'm against asserting that a standard is set forth by the rules when it is not. I also don't find it very hard to play characters of below average Intelligence.

 

[BoldItalic]

I'm not interjecting anything, though. Intelligence = ability to reason. Whenever you have one thing equal another, anything that modifies one, modifies the other equally. If you have a low intelligence, it's automatic that you have a low ability to reason. That's how equality works. This is especially true in 5e where we know that things are written with the common usages in mind.

Ah-ah. What the text says is that Intelligence measures various things, including the ability to reason. It doesn't say that Intelligence equals those things. A scale of measurement is not the same as the thing being measured. I can use a 12" ruler graduated in inches to measure the length of my thumb, but that doesn't mean that the 12" ruler = my thumb.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah-ah. What the text says is that Intelligence measures various things, including the ability to reason. It doesn't say that Intelligence equals those things. A scale of measurement is not the same as the thing being measured. I can use a 12" ruler graduated in inches to measure the length of my thumb, but that doesn't mean that the 12" ruler = my thumb.

Ah-ah to you, too!

It says nothing about "measuring various things, including..." What is says is the following. "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." It measures exactly those things. Nothing more. Nothing less. Intelligence = accuracy of recall, mental acuity and the ability to reason. Low intelligence = low accuracy of recall, low mental acuity, and low ability to reason. Since we have been discussing only reasoning, I simply haven't mentioned the others.

 

[BoldItalic]

Ah-ah to you, too!

It says nothing about "measuring various things, including..." What is says is the following. "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." It measures exactly those things. Nothing more. Nothing less. Intelligence = accuracy of recall, mental acuity and the ability to reason. Low intelligence = low accuracy of recall, low mental acuity, and low ability to reason. Since we have been discussing only reasoning, I simply haven't mentioned the others.

So you believe that the mathematical equal sign denotes the relation "measures"? Really?

 

[Maxperson]

So you believe that the mathematical equal sign denotes the relation "measures"? Really?

Those three things are the entirety of intelligence in 5e. Therefore, one side must equal the other, so yes.

 

[dennis_johnjoe]

To be fair, there's intelligence and your intelligence ability score. Take, for example, speed. In D&D it's derived in several ways. If you're talking about reaction time, fast drawing weapons or slight of hand then Dex more than differentiates characters speed. Over a foot race or chase, though your move becomes more important. If it's how long it takes you to run a marathon or cross a desert, you could even apply your con score. All of these apply to 'speed'.

So intelligence. Yes, there is an ability score and the rules tell us what that means. There is also language proficiency, feats and skills that play a part as well. Overall is your 'intelligence' not a combination of them all?

I understand both sides of this argument. Personally, I would role play a low int character as just that. However, I wouldn't sit and not contribute ooc. D&D is a team game, no?

But... I also get the position that intelligence as an ability score only tells part of the story.

Personally, I'd go with either at my table if it was part of a cool overall character idea.

 

[pemerton]

I have followed nature shows for 35+ years. Eagles have always been shown flying off with goats and other animals that are very large compared to the eagle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XafAdkZIYKA

Did we watch the same clip? I saw a clip of an eagle attacking a goat and knocking it off a cliff. It didn't fly off carrying the goat!

 

[Maxperson]

Did we watch the same clip? I saw a clip of an eagle attacking a goat and knocking it off a cliff. It didn't fly off carrying the goat!

At around 1:15 it's flying with the goat.

 

[BoldItalic]

Those three things are the entirety of intelligence in 5e. Therefore, one side must equal the other, so yes.

I'll try once more, then leave you to your beliefs.

Suppose I have an apple, an orange and a banana, and a set of weighing scales. I weigh the fruit on the scales. The scales have measured the weight of the fruit.

Going by your principle, apple, orange and banana are the entirety of the fruit, therefore scales = apple, orange and banana.

Be happy.