D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[iserith]

Show me that pg 57 quote only from the PHB.

I quote the Basic Rules wherever possible because people can access that online via a PDF instead of needing a physical book. If it's in the Basic Rules, it's in the PHB.

"Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability."

So I take it that you feel that training (skills) and competence (proficiency/exp) change your core abilities so that all you need is to get ONE skill at a positive number and you can now roleplay that low governing ability as at least average if not above average?

Personally I can see exp changing your core ability scores because that built into the game via ability score improvements and some feats but skills no.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you rephrase?

 

[Yardiff]

Do you feel that skills change your base ability score so that when you roleplay that ability you can use the skill score to represent your ability?

To be clear this is never been about rolling skill checks, roleplay isn't all about skill/ability check rolls.

 

[iserith]

Do you feel that skills change your base ability score so that when you roleplay that ability you can use the skill score to represent your ability?

Sorry, I'm still not entirely sure I get what you're saying. Could you give me an example of what you mean?

To be clear this is never been about rolling skill checks, roleplay isn't all about skill/ability check rolls.

I doubt anyone believes that ability checks are roleplaying. Roleplaying's just playing a role, determining how your character acts and thinks. The ability check is just a mechanic the DM uses to resolve uncertainty when he or she is not sure about the outcome of a fictional act.

 

[Yardiff]

An example, Bolds' Lefty character with the 5 int and investigation skill of +1 after proficiency and expertise and roleplaying him as if he had an average to above average int because of the skill.

 

[Maxperson]

An example, Bolds' Lefty character with the 5 int and investigation skill of +1 after proficiency and expertise and roleplaying him as if he had an average to above average int because of the skill.

The problem is that people are using "aspect of" to mean the same as the thing itself, which is wrong. Something that is an aspect of intelligence is not itself intelligence. For example, a car is a car. Headlights are not a car, despite being an aspect of one.

Skills in 5e are not the stats themselves, so investigation is not intelligence, despite the quotes offered up here. This is further proven by variant: skills with different abilities section. You can use multiple different abilities for one single skill. Investigation is not intelligence, despite being an aspect of intelligence, so the skill itself would be used incorrectly if used to roleplay a below average intelligence as average or better.

 

[iserith]

An example, Bolds' Lefty character with the 5 int and investigation skill of +1 after proficiency and expertise and roleplaying him as if he had an average to above average int because of the skill.

I think the disconnect is in portraying the character in any particular way because of these mechanics. I'm advocating acting how you want to act. If you want to use the mechanics to inform that, go for it. Just don't claim that the rules say you should do ti a particular way and that anyone who doesn't play as you do is doing it wrong.

 

[pemerton]

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

It's dropping with the goat.

As far as I can tell from a bit of Googling, that's a golden eagle weighing 4-ish kg (call it 9 lb) with a 2 metre wingspan. Wikipedia tells me that mountain goats weigh 100 lb or more (45 kg and up) with a body length of over 1 metre. It's not clear how much that goat weights, but a lot more than 4 kg! The eagle can't carry it, or lift it while flying.

I refer you to the earlier sites that I linked to, which talk about the amount of weight that an eagle can lift and carry.

 

[pemerton]

You are arguing for my side of things and against Iserith. I have been saying from the get go that the measure for int is not simply a bonus or penalty.

<snip>

For him to now start arguing the DM should just deny the poor frog its IQ test is essentially him arguing out of both sides of his mouth. His argument becomes, "When it comes to INT, only the bonus or penalty applies to reasoning and not anything else, except when I want it to. Then it does."

Not at all. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] isn't saying that the frog can't take the IQ test because of its INT score. Presumably, in iserith's game, a PC with a 2 INT can sit an IQ test.

Iserith is saying that the frog can't take an IQ test because it's a frog.

I made the same point about the giant lizard. It's a lizard. And therefore, for any number of reasons - its lack of cognitive skill, its lack of hands - it can't pick locks or use chopsticks. The fact that its DEX is rated at 12 has no bearing on these matters.

Which only goes to tell us that stats like INT and DEX don't exhaust our understanding of the cognitive and manipulative capabilities of a creature. We know that already because we know what frogs and what lizards are.

All the 12 DEX of the lizard is doing is telling me how to generate some necessary mechanical details for the creature (init, AC, etc).

All the 2 INT of the frog is doing is telling me that it can't escape from a maze spell.

Or let's take the giant ape, with an INT of 7. It can't speak, or read and write, or count, or solve crosswords puzzles. Does that mean a PC of INT 7 can't do any of those things either? To me it is obvious that those limitations on a giant ape are not consequences of it having an INT of 7, but consequences of the fact that it is an ape, not a human (or near-human) being. And I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] agrees with me on this point.

To be fair, there's intelligence and your intelligence ability score.

<snip>

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?

Absolutely!

For instance (and unlike earlier editions of the game), 5e doesn't link the INT score to language learning. Hence, whatever exactly is meant by saying that INT measures recall and memory and reasoning, it clearly doesn't measure all of those things, because the game permits a PC to have a low INT yet know many languages. (Per the Basic PDF p 68, the training takes 250 days regardless of INT.)

Nor does INT place any limitation on tool proficiency. It is possible, for instance, to be a master lockpick with 3 INT.

So obviously INT does not encompass everything even within the domains of reasoning and recall, let alone other aspects of what would ordinarily be called intelligence.

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.

The rules text actually says that INT measures the ability to reason (among other things - obviously it's possible for a human being to have poor reasoning but good memory, and it's not clear how exactly this impacts on the INT score). What form does the measure take? As I read the rules, it primarily takes the form of imposing a penalty on ability checks made to determine the outcome of feats of reasoning.

For instance, an INT check would presumably be made to find out how look it takes a PC to solve a crossword puzzle, or to see how far s/he can get (assuming that the GM hasn't actually drawn up a crossword puzzle for the players to solve). A character with a low INT would suffer a penalty, and hence be less likely to succeed at the crossword in a given amount of time. To me, that seems to be the main respect in which INT is a measure of reasoning ability.

 

[iserith]

Not at all. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] isn't saying that the frog can't take the IQ test because of its INT score. Presumably, in iserith's game, a PC with a 2 INT can sit an IQ test.

Iserith is saying that the frog can't take an IQ test because it's a frog.

I made the same point about the giant lizard. It's a lizard. And therefore, for any number of reasons - its lack of cognitive skill, its lack of hands - it can't pick locks or use chopsticks. The fact that its DEX is rated at 12 has no bearing on these matters.

Which only goes to tell us that stats like INT and DEX don't exhaust our understanding of the cognitive and manipulative capabilities of a creature. We know that already because we know what frogs and what lizards are.

All the 12 DEX of the lizard is doing is telling me how to generate some necessary mechanical details for the creature (init, AC, etc).

All the 2 INT of the frog is doing is telling me that it can't escape from a maze spell.

Or let's take the giant ape, with an INT of 7. It can't speak, or read and write, or count, or solve crosswords puzzles. Does that mean a PC of INT 7 can't do any of those things either? To me it is obvious that those limitations on a giant ape are not consequences of it having an INT of 7, but consequences of the fact that it is an ape, not a human (or near-human) being. And I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] agrees with me on this point.

You are correct.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] isn't saying that the frog can't take the IQ test because of its INT score. Presumably, in iserith's game, a PC with a 2 INT can sit an IQ test.

Iserith is saying that the frog can't take an IQ test because it's a frog.

I made the same point about the giant lizard. It's a lizard. And therefore, for any number of reasons - its lack of cognitive skill, its lack of hands - it can't pick locks or use chopsticks. The fact that its DEX is rated at 12 has no bearing on these matters.

Which only goes to tell us that stats like INT and DEX don't exhaust our understanding of the cognitive and manipulative capabilities of a creature. We know that already because we know what frogs and what lizards are.

All the 12 DEX of the lizard is doing is telling me how to generate some necessary mechanical details for the creature (init, AC, etc).

All the 2 INT of the frog is doing is telling me that it can't escape from a maze spell.

Or let's take the giant ape, with an INT of 7. It can't speak, or read and write, or count, or solve crosswords puzzles. Does that mean a PC of INT 7 can't do any of those things either? To me it is obvious that those limitations on a giant ape are not consequences of it having an INT of 7, but consequences of the fact that it is an ape, not a human (or near-human) being. And I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] agrees with me on this point.

This is a game where you can speak with animals, so yes, frogs and apes can speak. If we're going to assume that an IQ test is being given in the game, it's equally valid to assume that the frog or ape can speak, count and even solve crossword puzzles. To deny the frog his test, because frog, is wrong. That only applies in the real world.