D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

There is also a potential upside to playing to a flaw as established by the character's background: Earning Inspiration. Rolling 2d20 and taking the better result is nice so this is a good incentive. But again, it's not required of the player. Unless the DM is handing out Inspiration for playing to what he or she thinks ability scores mean, there is no similar upside.

I award bonus exp to the group at the end of the night based on roleplaying. Don't assume there is no similar upside in the games of people in my side of the debate if they aren't using inspiration.

 

[pemerton]

In any event if someone was playing a 5 INT character - the rest of the players would be auditing his/her roleplaying. As DM, I wouldn't even have to get involved - and for that reason no one plays a 5 INT.

Would they play other stats at 5?

As I've mentioned several times upthread, one thing that bothers me is the idea that having 5 INT should be some sort of burden that has a profound effect on gameplay in a way that having 5 STR doesn't.

 

[Maxperson]

Would they play other stats at 5?

Yes. Every other stat is much easier to play when very low. Int is the hardest since it limits the PC so much.

As I've mentioned several times upthread, one thing that bothers me is the idea that having 5 INT should be some sort of burden that has a profound effect on gameplay in a way that having 5 STR doesn't.

It's a profoundly different stat. No other stat has the impact on game play for the player that int has. That doesn't mean that it's okay to ignore what a 5 int means, though. It just means that you shouldn't choose a low int if you aren't okay with roleplaying it.

 

[BoldItalic]

Would they play other stats at 5?

As I've mentioned several times upthread, one thing that bothers me is the idea that having 5 INT should be some sort of burden that has a profound effect on gameplay in a way that having 5 STR doesn't.

I think the reason that people regard Int as different (and maybe Wis, but that seems to be less contentious) is that players use their own intelligence and (one hopes) wisdom to play the game in a way that they don't use, say, strength or dexterity. Players get emotional about their own ability to play the game and then, because players identify with their characters, they get emotional about their characters' mental abilities too. It's a kind of transference of anxiety.

 

[pemerton]

Fallacies might work well on some ignorant jurors, but most people here are above average in intelligence and fairly well educated. You're just going to get called out on the fallacies, which takes away from the thread, and use of the fallacies themselves harms your arguments tremendously.

I've got no experience of jurors, ignorant or otherwise, and so will leave comment on their susceptibility to poor argument to others.

As far as ENworld is concerned, there is in my view a relatively widespread tendency to invoke the notion of "fallacy" when what is really going on is that two posters disagree on how a particular matter should be characterised, or on what reasons bear upon some RPG-related choice, etc. I think it's almost always more productive to actually explain one's view and explain why one thinks another poster is wrong, than to go "meta" and start labelling what are generally sincere attempts at argumentation as fallacy-ridden. (The most egregious example of this on these boards is the tendency to cry "strawman" when what is really going on is that two posters disagree over the salient features and hence implications of some particular subject-matter of discussion.)

An Appeal to Authority applies to authorities, too. It's a fallacy to say X is correct because an authority says it's correct and leave it at that. You have to also prove your argument through other means.

Maxperson, do you believe there is such a place as Paris? Berlin? Skopje? Sofia? On what basis? I'm assuming you haven't visited all those places to see them for yourself, so you must be relying on the testimony of others.

What you are calling the fallacy of appeal to authority is what epistemologists would call testimony. Not all testimony is reliable; but if you don't accept some testimony you're going to end up with a pretty thin knowledge base.

I presented testimony as to what is acceptable usage of the word "irrational" among a group of professionals whose daily work includes thinking about the nature of reasons and reasoning. If you think my testimony is unreliable - eg because you don't trust me, or you think I'm lying about my occupation, or you think I'm confused in some way - then that's fine. It's no skin of my nose.

But if you think that my testimony is unreliable simply because it's testimony - that's quite odd. How would you have me back it up? Produce more testimony from other academic philosophers and lawyers? But by your own lights, that's just more authority!

(I certainly can't prove anything by using a dictionary, because what is a dictionary but a statement by an authority as to what is proper usage!)

I don't understand what sort of proof you want.

now you attack me and not my argument.

I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out that your objection to my testimony rests on a principle of evidence - namely, that testimony is unreliable per se - which I am almost certain you don't apply in most other contexts. The reason I am using geographic examples is because they are particularly common instances of people relying upon the testimony of others in forming beliefs about the world. Specialist bodies of knowledge are another such example, which is why I mentioned general relativity.

That's not an ad hominem argument. It's diagnosing an inconsistent application of epistemic standards.

How would you go about establishing the proper usage of the word "irrational" without either asking those whose occupation involves working with the notion (the dreaded authorities) or looking in a dictionary (another authority)?

 

[pemerton]

I think the reason that people regard Int as different (and maybe Wis, but that seems to be less contentious) is that players use their own intelligence and (one hopes) wisdom to play the game in a way that they don't use, say, strength or dexterity. Players get emotional about their own ability to play the game and then, because players identify with their characters, they get emotional about their characters' mental abilities too. It's a kind of transference of anxiety.

This makes me feel that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and I have resolved the matter: use INT for checks when the rules or GM call for them, but don't treat it as exhaustive of the fictional character's cognitive ability (as is already clear in 5e, given that languages are divorced from INT). Then you won't need to be anxious!

The idea that it is more punitive to have a low INT than a low STR would also be another example of fighters being constrained in a way that wizards are not (accepting the default approach to statting up such PCs). I don't think that's very good for the game either.

 

[Manbearcat]

One (well...me) can't help but wonder if much/most/all of these matters would be resolved if Intelligence expressed more mechanical potency in D&D's turn-based combat engine. For instance, if Intelligence (information-assimilation and processing-speed, or the crucial components of Orient, in part, and all of Decide and in the OODA Loop) augmented (or perhaps outright dictated) Initiative rather than Dexterity (which only correlates to the Act portion of the OODA Loop).

I mean:

Observe (Wisdom)
Orient (Wisdom and Intelligence)
Decide (Intelligence)
Act (Dexterity)

That is 1.5 parts Int! I think that gets to the crux of why D&D ability scores (coupled with the basic resolution mechanic of d20 + mod vs TN) are such bloody awful process simulators. Animals have a lower cognitive ceiling than humans do. However, where they have developed and evolved simple (not always terribly simple) strategies for dealing with ecological pressures, their Ints are exceedingly higher than their D&D attribute score of 3!

 

[pemerton]

Animals have a lower cognitive ceiling than humans do. However, where they have developed and evolved simple (not always terribly simple) strategies for dealing with ecological pressures, their Ints are exceedingly higher than their D&D attribute score of 3!

But can they do IQ tests?!

Animals have weird CHA scores too. Why is an eagle, cat, dire wolf or draft horse CHA 7, an elephant or death dog CHA 6, and a crocodile or giant boar only CHA 5? Eagles are glamorous, sure, but in what world is a crocodile or giant boar not more intimidating than a housecat?

I don't want to say that the project of applying stats to animals is actively misguided, but it's clearly got its limitations. (With that 15 DEX, we should get the black cat familiar to pick the locks and disarm the traps!)

EDIT: There seem to be some wonky attacks too. A croc is +4 to hit for 7 damage, while a draft horse is +6 to hit for 9 damage. I know horses can be dangerous - but so are crocodiles!

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson, do you believe there is such a place as Paris? Berlin? Skopje? Sofia? On what basis? I'm assuming you haven't visited all those places to see them for yourself, so you must be relying on the testimony of others.

I'm also relying on video and picture evidence, the French language, the multitude of people who say there is a Paris, and so on. I'm not relying on an authority who says there is a Paris because he is an authority.

What you are calling the fallacy of appeal to authority is what epistemologists would call testimony. Not all testimony is reliable; but if you don't accept some testimony you're going to end up with a pretty thin knowledge base.

False. What I am calling an appeal to authority is someone claiming something is true because he is an authority. That's a fallacy.

I presented testimony as to what is acceptable usage of the word "irrational" among a group of professionals whose daily work includes thinking about the nature of reasons and reasoning. If you think my testimony is unreliable - eg because you don't trust me, or you think I'm lying about my occupation, or you think I'm confused in some way - then that's fine. It's no skin of my nose.

None of that is true. It's unreliable because it's an Appeal to Authority. You are claiming to be correct because Lawyer, not because evidence or other valid argument. You aren't presenting definitions or other valid reasons for your claim.

(I certainly can't prove anything by using a dictionary, because what is a dictionary but a statement by an authority as to what is proper usage!)

Something more than, "I am correct because I am an authority." Definitions are not an authority. They are the culmination of word meaning used by billions of people around the globe,. not one person saying that it is so because he is an authority.

I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out that your objection to my testimony rests on a principle of evidence - namely, that testimony is unreliable per se - which I am almost certain you don't apply in most other contexts. The reason I am using geographic examples is because they are particularly common instances of people relying upon the testimony of others in forming beliefs about the world. Specialist bodies of knowledge are another such example, which is why I mentioned general relativity.

It was very much an attack. You were mocking me because of position and argument, not presenting any sort of counter argument.

How would you go about establishing the proper usage of the word "irrational" without either asking those whose occupation involves working with the notion (the dreaded authorities) or looking in a dictionary (another authority)?

Again, the dictionary is not an authority in the sense of the fallacy. It doesn't represent a single authorative source. It represents the common meanings of the word as used by millions to billions of people, not one person who says he knows best.

 

[Maxperson]

But can they do IQ tests?!

Animals have weird CHA scores too. Why is an eagle, cat, dire wolf or draft horse CHA 7, an elephant or death dog CHA 6, and a crocodile or giant boar only CHA 5? Eagles are glamorous, sure, but in what world is a crocodile or giant boar not more intimidating than a housecat?

The same goes for humans with a low charisma who are bad men, though. It's not an animal phenomenon, but rather a charisma flaw as D&D uses the stat. That's why we house rule that negative charisma can be used as a positive modifier when intimidating.