D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[JonnyP71]

As I would any character with any range of ability score, I wouldn't so much play the character as play the game.

There are as many ways as there are players.

For the purpose of roleplaying, no. Stats, mental or otherwise, place no limitations on how you roleplay.

My position is that solving problems is the primary challenge of a roleplaying game. Engaging with that challenge as a player is not wrong regardless of what your character's abilities are. It is simply playing the game.

This is the crux of the argument in the the thread, as people naturally play in different ways:

I play the character 1st, the game 2nd. If I have a character with 5 Int I will incorporate various suitable flaws into his persona and play them at the table to the best of my ability... for example, if I say that illiteracy is a consequence of his lack of Intelligence and we get a puzzle based on reading, then my character might just grunt and get annoyed (and I will not take part in solving it at the table). If I get hold of a map I may pretend to read it - and hold it the wrong way up. Other consequences I would consider would be slow-witted, forgetful, and/or uneducated.

I use the stats to help guide my roleplaying, and when DMing, I encourage my players to do the same, as I believe the stats should have positives and negatives beyond just the skill/combat modifiers.

On the recently discussed point regarding how the character stats compare with creature stats though, I do not believe they are comparable, and prefer to look at the issue from a more realistic viewpoint. I believe all creatures in the MM are given stats purely for the purpose of aiding the DM with any relevant saving throws and stat checks. A Bear clearly has 12 Wisdom because of excellent natural sense, and thus cannot be compared with a Human with 12 wisdom - senses work differently, a Human would get +1 on a medicine check, but a Bear could not even attempt such a check. Likewise an Ape with 6 Int is NOT more intelligent than a Human with 5 Int - a Human with 5 Int can feasibly be capable of reading/writing, though probably not very well, and thus might have a basic grasp of local history, can recognise when a spell is being cast, and might know a little about local religions. The Ape would not know about any of these, and would not be capable of knowing.

But as this thread has shown, people's opinions differ wildly.

 

[iserith]

This is the crux of the argument in the the thread, as people naturally play in different ways:

I play the character 1st, the game 2nd. If I have a character with 5 Int I will incorporate various suitable flaws into his persona and play them at the table to the best of my ability... for example, if I say that illiteracy is a consequence of his lack of Intelligence and we get a puzzle based on reading, then my character might just grunt and get annoyed (and I will not take part in solving it at the table). If I get hold of a map I may pretend to read it - and hold it the wrong way up. Other consequences I would consider would be slow-witted, forgetful, and/or uneducated.

I use the stats to help guide my roleplaying, and when DMing, I encourage my players to do the same, as I believe the stats should have positives and negatives beyond just the skill/combat modifiers.

On the recently discussed point regarding how the character stats compare with creature stats though, I do not believe they are comparable, and prefer to look at the issue from a more realistic viewpoint. I believe all creatures in the MM are given stats purely for the purpose of aiding the DM with any relevant saving throws and stat checks. A Bear clearly has 12 Wisdom because of excellent natural sense, and thus cannot be compared with a Human with 12 wisdom - senses work differently, a Human would get +1 on a medicine check, but a Bear could not even attempt such a check. Likewise an Ape with 6 Int is NOT more intelligent than a Human with 5 Int - a Human with 5 Int can feasibly be capable of reading/writing, though probably not very well, and thus might have a basic grasp of local history, can recognise when a spell is being cast, and might know a little about local religions. The Ape would not know about any of these, and would not be capable of knowing.

But as this thread has shown, people's opinions differ wildly.

That is a very reasonable position in my view.

 

[Maxperson]

No such translation exists in 5th edition.

I'm sure if you look closely at the single sentence I posted, you'll note that I never said 5e. I said D&D. 3 of the 5 editions (4 out of 6 if you count 3.5 as a new edition) have int x 10 = IQ as a thing. 31 of the 39 years if you want to go by duration of editions. That's a clear majority of D&D.

Thanks for the Strawman, though.

 

[Maxperson]

There are as many ways as there are players.

Completely false. There are nowhere near that many ways to roleplay a low ability score. A lot of duplication will occur.

For the purpose of roleplaying, no. Stats, mental or otherwise, place no limitations on how you roleplay.

This is true. You are not limited to roleplaying a low ability score properly. You can in fact roleplay badly.

My position is that solving problems is the primary challenge of a roleplaying game. Engaging with that challenge as a player is not wrong regardless of what your character's abilities are. It is simply playing the game.

And this is just flat out wrong. When you "simply play a game", you are agreeing to engage challenges within the confines of the game rules and game fluff. If you ignore those rules and fluff and just play as a player without regard for the game you play, you are in the wrong.

 

[Satyrn]

And this is just flat out wrong. When you "simply play a game", you are agreeing to engage challenges within the confines of the game rules and game fluff. If you ignore those rules and fluff and just play as a player without regard for the game you play, you are in the wrong.

Perversely, I want to see the essay that goes with this hypothesis.

 

[Maxperson]

Perversely, I want to see the essay that goes with this hypothesis.

You think that when you play a game that you don't agree to be bound by it?

 

[Hriston]

Completely false. There are nowhere near that many ways to roleplay a low ability score. A lot of duplication will occur.

How do you know this? Perhaps you are imagining there are more people who think as you do than there really are. Besides, you are constructing a straw-man. My response had nothing to do with playing a low ability score. It was about playing a character.

This is true. You are not limited to roleplaying a low ability score properly. You can in fact roleplay badly.

What is termed "proper" and "bad" here are solely matters of your opinion. Others, myself included, may have different tastes.

And this is just flat out wrong. When you "simply play a game", you are agreeing to engage challenges within the confines of the game rules and game fluff. If you ignore those rules and fluff and just play as a player without regard for the game you play, you are in the wrong.

Okay @Maxperson, I'll ask you again. What "rules and fluff" am I ignoring when I, as a player, engage with the challenges of the game?

edit: And to be clear, I don't regard the problem of how to "properly" display my character's low Intelligence to be one of those challenges.

 

[Satyrn]

You think that when you play a game that you don't agree to be bound by it?

That last post of mine was originally gonna read "If the ref doesn't throw a flag, there's no foul" What that means to imply is that the rules (and fluff) of D&D change based on who is playing it.

But I posted what you quoted because I got curious about why you think the game is bounded the way you think it is. Why do you think there's a wrong way to play D&D?

 

[Satyrn]

So, my family plays a card game called Lost Heir. It's played with a custom deck of 32 cards, four suits of 8 cards each, valued from 0 to 7, each suit named after a different Canadian city. The game is sort of played like bridge with two teams bidding on the tricks they can take each hand, but with the ultimate goal of taking the Lost Heir card (Edmonton 0) and ideally avoiding the Wrong Boy card (Toronto 0) since they are worth 5 tricks and -3 tricks respectively.

Why do I say all this? Well, when I read the rules that come with the cards, I found that while the above is true in both the RAW and in my family's game, the details change. So yeah, while I suppose you can say we don't play Lost Heir "properly" I can't possibly imagine how that logic carries over to D&D, where house rules and personal/table preferences are integral to the game.

 

[Yardiff]

This guy crunched some numbers http://simantics.blogspot.se/2011/01/d-and-iq.html?m=1

I have not checked them. But according to his table int 5 would be 72. Dull, but not retarded.

I'm sure that if you tried you could find somewhere on the web a site that tells you what you want to hear, you want to hear that a 5 int is equal to 150 I'm sure its out there.