D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[JonnyP71]

The key issue here, to my mind, which I've reiterated multiple times but on which I've seen no reply, is this: a wizard with a 5 STR is a perfectly playable character, whose player will have no trouble fully engaging with the challenges of the game. But as many in this thread are presenting it, a fighter with a 5 INT is not a character whose player can fully engage the challenges of the game, because to do so - to actually take part in what is, at heart, an intellectual pastime - is a failure of roleplaying.

I don't understand how this asymmetry is supposed to be justified.

If the GM wants the fighter to suffer for having a low INT, put in a lot of maze spells and languages that need deciphering!

The are already rules in place regarding STR mechanics though in game terms (5E PHB Pg 176) - regarding lifting, carrying and encumbrance. If anything they are a little too forgiving - *30 is somewhat unrealistic as an average man cannot shift 300lbs.

If the DM says a grate weighs 200lbs then a 5 STR (max 150lbs) character cannot lift it, whether or not they make a strength check.

And a STR 5 PC *should* have a slower movement speed if carrying more than 25lbs!

Maybe the simple answer is for a DM to say 'this puzzle cannot be solved by any PC with an Int of less than 12' as an example? If the DM wants to allow the player to discuss the solution with the group then that is fine, as levels of roleplaying vary from table to table. But in such a case it would have to be an intelligent PC to actually apply or explain the solution in game.

 

[pemerton]

The are already rules in place regarding STR mechanics though in game terms (5E PHB Pg 176)

Sure. Moldvay Basic has similar rules relating INT to languages. Low-INT PCs are illiterate, and very low INT PCs have some difficulty with spoken words also.

Maybe the simple answer is for a DM to say 'this puzzle cannot be solved by any PC with an Int of less than 12' as an example?

This is something that I canvassed a long way upthread, when I raised the issue of INT as a constraint on permissible action declaration. It puts the burden on the GM to frame the fictional situation in mechanical terms, just as is the case with your STR and weight/encumbrance examples, while leaving the player free to play his/her PC.

Not too far upthread I pointed to a passage on p 10 of Men & Magic (volume 1 of the original D&D), which says that "Intelligence will . . . affect the referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken . . ." It's not fully clear what this means. Maybe it means that the referee will refer to the INT of a monster or NPC in deciding whether or not it takes a certain action (and this is something that is also emphasised in Gygax's DMG). Or maybe it means that the GM will have regard to a PC's INT in deciding whether it is permissible to frame certain action declarations - which would be the same as what you are suggesting.

I think these examples from earlier editions are quite relevant to thinking about the role of the INT stat as a constraint on play via action declaration - which, by putting the burden on the GM (where I think it belongs, at least in the context of D&D) rather than on the player to be a "good roleplayer", facilitates rather than constrains the player in playing his/her PC.

 

[JonnyP71]

Sure. Moldvay Basic has similar rules relating INT to languages. Low-INT PCs are illiterate, and very low INT PCs have some difficulty with spoken words also.

I know, I cut my teeth on Basic in 1983, though it was Mentzer's red box.

This is something that I canvassed a long way upthread, when I raised the issue of INT as a constraint on permissible action declaration. It puts the burden on the GM to frame the fictional situation in mechanical terms, just as is the case with your STR and weight/encumbrance examples, while leaving the player free to play his/her PC.

This is where we disagree I guess, as I would add "while leaving the player free to play his/her PC... within the realistic bounds of his/her background and abilities."

which, by putting the burden on the GM (where I think it belongs, at least in the context of D&D) rather than on the player to be a "good roleplayer", facilitates rather than constrains the player in playing his/her PC.

Sorry, but I believe the player DOES have a responsibility to roleplay to the best of their ability. A 5 Int character IS stupid. When I said above "Maybe the simple answer is for a DM to say 'this puzzle cannot be solved by any PC with an Int of less than 12' as an example? If the DM wants to allow the player to discuss the solution with the group then that is fine, as levels of roleplaying vary from table to table. But in such a case it would have to be an intelligent PC to actually apply or explain the solution in game." - all puzzle solving attempts by the player would have to be entirely through means of Out Of Character discussion - and only if that sort of play was applicable to the group. I would under no circumstance allow the player to attempt to solve the puzzle while in character.

But such a mechanical ruling as 'Minimum 12 Int to solve the puzzle' would only be necessary if the character was being roleplayed poorly. A good roleplayer would, imho, accept that 5 Int = mentally deficient in some way - and that the character should be played as such.

 

[iserith]

To me the question is why should I give a dusty flumph how someone else roleplays as long as it is not disruptive to the game experience?

And, given the above, if I was someone who is bothered by how someone else portrays a particular ability score, then why should I see the problem as being the other person rather than a personal hangup based on outdated ideas that I should just get over? At least I'd have control over the latter.

 

[Maxperson]

To me the question is why should I give a dusty flumph how someone else roleplays as long as it is not disruptive to the game experience?

Poor roleplay like that is disruptive to the game experience.

 

[iserith]

Poor roleplay like that is disruptive to the game experience.

Only if you're this guy:

And, given the above, if I was someone who is bothered by how someone else portrays a particular ability score, then why should I see the problem as being the other person rather than a personal hangup based on outdated ideas that I should just get over? At least I'd have control over the latter.

And we had a meeting and nobody likes that guy anyway. He's too judgy and his ideas are about 40 years out of date.

 

[Maxperson]

Only if you're this guy:

And we had a meeting and nobody likes that guy anyway. He's too judgy and his ideas are about 40 years out of date.

Poor roleplay like that is no different than the DM describing a normal sword's edge as doing blunt trauma only or having a normal hammer neatly slice someone in half. It's incongruous and disruptive to game play.

 

[iserith]

It's incongruous and disruptive to game play.

Only if you're that guy.

 

[cmad1977]

To me the question is why should I give a dusty flumph how someone else roleplays as long as it is not disruptive to the game experience?

And, given the above, if I was someone who is bothered by how someone else portrays a particular ability score, then why should I see the problem as being the other person rather than a personal hangup based on outdated ideas that I should just get over? At least I'd have control over the latter.

Only if you're the douchebag type player who judges people on their 'roleplaying abilities'.

Dusty Flumph... Noice.

 

[JonnyP71]

And we had a meeting and nobody likes that guy anyway. He's too judgy and his ideas are about 40 years out of date.

Thankfully all the gamers I play regularly with do not agree with that statement (players aged 19-45, gaming experience ranging from 6 months up to 35 years). We all enjoy rolling stats and shaping a character around those stats along with their chosen class/profession and background.