D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Sadras]

I think Iserith's answer, and mine, is that you can't, so don't try. Let the dice fall where they may, and reward Inspiration (and general table approval) for good roleplaying. And that good roleplaying may very well be, "Yeah, my character is clueless and illogical in so many ways, but he has a strange gift for abstract logic puzzles."

Fair enough, but does that mean you expect such a player to also roleplay their character's clueless and illogical flaws or is this a one-way street where the only part of that 5 INT that needs to be roleplayed is the strange gift for abstract puzzles.


Now just touching on last week's topic.

I don't share your concerns about player abuse/dump-statting/mix-maxing, etc., no. But that's probably because I've been pretty lucky, player-wise.

Presumably it can be done, and is done.

But that doesn't tell us what counts as good RPing.

I don't share the concerns of player abuse.

Designers have to look beyond their own tables, perhaps their own non-fears and attempt to plug holes where player abuse might exist within the broader playerbase and cause unnecessary friction at other tables.
If I look at the 5e PHB, I see several instances where they provide guidance on low INT and what INT is utilised for.

Furthermore, in the 5e DMG under the NPC creation rules (page 89) NPCs with low INT have qualities such as dim-witted and slow. Interesting that here we have the designers of the game advising the DM on how to roleplay characters with low INT, but there appears to be resistance on this thread when similar such advise is offered to players on their own roleplaying. One could argue this could just be another case of player entitlement.

But besides all the advice/hints we also have MECHANICS guiding us: On page 13 of the PHB, the standard array example provided as well as the point buy system alone ensures that character's begin with a minimum score of 8 INT. One has to ask why would they insist on a minimum of 8 INT.

I can only think of 2 reasons, there might be more:

1. To limit abuse on the min/max of abilities (despite some DMs honestly not having such concerns at their own tables); and/or
2. To ensure that player's are forced to draw up characters with a reasonable amount of INT to ensure a believable level of participation by the player through the character and thus ensuring no possible table friction (due to being "that guy" as @iserith put it to @Maxperson some posts back)

It does appear to me, that the designers certainly shared the same concerns with me and many other posters on this thread otherwise there would be no need to create these minimum restrictions.
I'm certainly not saying that those that roleplay 5 INT as smart is bad/poor roleplaying but from the 5e core rulebooks PoV, it is certainly not RAI (Roleplaying as Intended).

As I have said before, I have mechanically fixed for my own table the benefits/disadvantages of having a high/low INT score alleviating my concern for 1 and negating DM involvement for 2. I don't want to be advising my players on their roleplaying styles. It was easier when we were younger and just starting out or if there is newbie player.

 

[Satyrn]

Furthermore, in the 5e DMG under the NPC creation rules (page 89) NPCs with low INT have qualities such as dim-witted and slow. Interesting that here we have the designers of the game advising the DM on how to roleplay characters with low INT, but there appears to be resistance on this thread when similar such advise is offered to players. One could argue this could just be another case of player entitlement.

I have seen no resistance in this thread when similar advice is offered to players. What I've seen is resistance to the idea that the rules dictate that the players must roleplay a certain way.

 

[iserith]

Designers have to look beyond their own tables, perhaps their own non-fears and attempt to plug holes where player abuse might exist within the broader playerbase and cause unnecessary friction at other tables.
If I look at the 5e PHB, I see several instances where they provide guidance on low INT and what INT is utilised for.

Furthermore, in the 5e DMG under the NPC creation rules (page 89) NPCs with low INT have qualities such as dim-witted and slow. Interesting that here we have the designers of the game advising the DM on how to roleplay characters with low INT, but there appears to be resistance on this thread when similar such advise is offered to players on their own roleplaying. One could argue this could just be another case of player entitlement.

Player character and non-player characters serve different purposes in the game. It's clear that an Int 5 is certainly below average, but again, there is no mandate on how a player must roleplay (nor how a DM must portray an NPC either).

But besides all the advice/hints we also have MECHANICS guiding us: On page 13 of the PHB, the standard array example provided as well as the point buy system alone ensures that character's begin with a minimum score of 8 INT. One has to ask why would they insist on a minimum of 8 INT.

I can only think of 2 reasons, there might be more:

1. To limit abuse on the min/max of abilities (despite some DMs honestly not having such concerns at their own tables); and/or
2. To ensure that player's are forced to draw up characters with a reasonable amount of INT to ensure a believable level of participation by the player through the character and thus ensuring no possible table friction (due to being "that guy" as @iserith put it to @Maxperson some posts back)

The very first method of determining ability scores in the Basic Rules is roll 4d6, drop the lowest, repeat 5 more times, assign as you like. Nothing is said about having an ability score lower than 8 when using this method. It advises you to use the array if you don't like rolling randomly or if you want to save time. It doesn't say "do it because you shouldn't play a character with a score below 8."

If you really want to know what the rules say, turn to page 66 of the Basic Rules where it tells you what roleplaying is and who determines how the character acts and thinks.

 

[Sadras]

Player character and non-player characters serve different purposes in the game. It's clear that an Int 5 is certainly below average, but again, there is no mandate on how a player must roleplay (nor how a DM must portray an NPC either).

Would you say then its fair for there to have a certain roleplaying expectation then for a character with 5 INT? This does not necessarily make you 'that guy" but should the player not make the effort to at least fall, in terms of his roleplaying, within an agreeable range of 5 INT, then I don't think it is at all out of order to question his motive for playing a character with 5 INT.

The very first method of determining ability scores in the Basic Rules is roll 4d6, drop the lowest, repeat 5 more times, assign as you like. Nothing is said about having an ability score lower than 8 when using this method.

Mathematically the average of 4d6 drop the lowest at least realises a minimum score of 8+ more often than not. Why is that?

It advises you to use the array if you don't like rolling randomly or if you want to save time. It doesn't say "do it because you shouldn't play a character with a score below 8."

But the limit is 8 nevertheless. Why is that? Why does the variant option of point buy, especially this method, also begin at 8?

If you really want to know what the rules say, turn to page 66 of the Basic Rules where it tells you what roleplaying is and who determines how the character acts and thinks.

Absolutely the player determines how that character acts, talks and thinks along with their mechanically-engineered and expected INT of 8 or higher.

 

[Eric V]

An Appeal to Authority fails on its face. What you do is irrelevant..

It's not an Appeal to Authority fallacy if the person being appealed to actually has expertise on the topic in question.

 

[pemerton]

Out of interest, what about being lazy? Would you consider that person as being irrational as that action (inaction) has the potential to thwart his/her own goals or interests?

Being lazy can be a form of akratic behaviour, yes (resembling, or even in some cases bleeding into, procrastination). But it depends on the preference structure. Eg if the person actually values leisure more than some other goal, than "laziness" might be rational for that person. (But then there could be further complexity if the person's valuation of leisure itself rests on some miscalculation about that person's own interests.)

 

[BoldItalic]

Hmmm. So how "should" one play a low intelligence/high wisdom PC? Dumb but insightful? Uneducated but sharp? Say, an outlander barbarian. Lets give him that 5 Intelligence to signify raised by wolves. Never read a learnin' book. The usual stereotype. But what if he has a 16 Wisdom? Keen instincts. Quick witted.

Can he turn that puzzle dial to S?

Depends on his skills. In the absence of any relevant skills, he would solve problems by intuition rather than working them out logically. He would just 'know' the right answer but be quite unable to say how or why he knows.

Make him 20th level with expertise in Investigation, though, so he is +9 on solving problems by logic but still only +3 on guessing the answer by intuition, and he is more likely to arrive at the answer by making a series of guesses and testing each one in his head for logical correctness until he finds one that is correct.

In the former case, I would role-play him as one who tries to guess the answers to problems (not always correctly) whereas in the latter case I would role-play him as someone who gets to the solution quickly and can provide a post-hoc explanation of why that solution is correct.

 

[pemerton]

It's not an Appeal to Authority fallacy if the person being appealed to actually has expertise on the topic in question.

Just adding to this tangent: I believe that general relativity is (roughly) true, because I know that some extremely clever mathematical physicists (eg Einstein, Weil) have worked on it; because I have read Bertrand Russell's (simplified) presentations of it; because I heard on the radio fairly recently that gravity waves had been detected by astronomers;etc.

By [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s standards, it seems that I'm guilty of a fallacy for trusting the testimony of these various authorities and believing that general relativity is (roughly) true. I guess that Maxperson also doubts that Alice Springs exists, seeing as he doesn't believe things just because competent people tell them to him. (Maxperson, if you have been to Alice Springs than lets substitute Broken Hill, or Pyonyang, or some other place whose existence you know of only from the testimony of others.)

 

[iserith]

Would you say then its fair for there to have a certain roleplaying expectation then for a character with 5 INT? This does not necessarily make you 'that guy" but should the player not make the effort to at least fall, in terms of his roleplaying, within an agreeable range of 5 INT, then I don't think it is at all out of order to question his motive for playing a character with 5 INT.

I think it's fair to ask someone to play the way you want them to and I think it's fair to expect they will do so if they agreed to it.

Mathematically the average of 4d6 drop the lowest at least realises a minimum score of 8+ more often than not. Why is that?

But the limit is 8 nevertheless. Why is that? Why does the variant option of point buy, especially this method, also begin at 8?

Beats me, and I'm taking you at your word your calculations are correct. (I'm not a math guy.) They didn't include a rule that says to reroll if you get lower than 8 either. Why is that? Or the better questio is: Why does any of this speculation even matter? It is irrelevant. The players determine how their characters think and act based on whatever they like.

Absolutely the player determines how that character acts, talks and thinks along with their mechanically-engineered and expected INT of 8 or higher.

You're adding that last bit. And that might be the expectation at your table. I may even choose to do have the score inform my roleplaying. It's just not required by the rules.

 

[pemerton]

in the 5e DMG under the NPC creation rules (page 89) NPCs with low INT have qualities such as dim-witted and slow. Interesting that here we have the designers of the game advising the DM on how to roleplay characters with low INT, but there appears to be resistance on this thread when similar such advise is offered to players on their own roleplaying. One could argue this could just be another case of player entitlement.

Gygax's DMG is also full of injunctions to play NPCs and monsters in accordance with their intelligence. (That's why monsters in the MM have intelligence ratings!)

But in AD&D alignment plays a different role for PCs than for NPCs: for NPCs it is a constraint, or at least a signpost, for the GM's roleplaying, whereas for PCs it signals an aspiration which the player might achieve or fall short of.

The only edition of the game that I know of which suggests that alignment is the same thing for PCs as NPCs - namely, a constraint on RPing - is 2nd ed AD&D. Which is also the only edition, I think, that advocates playing a low INT character in the way that I have characterised as "irrational" and have expressed my dislike of upthread.

I don't think it's a coincidence that 2nd ed AD&D runs the same sort of line here. It's part-and-parcel of 2nd ed AD&D's larger approach to the role of the players - namely, as being primarily to provide colour and characterisation in the play of their PCs.