D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[iserith]

Now you've stoked my curiosity. Could you please share how you'd resolve the declaration of 'I shoot my eye lasers at the monster' when the character has no given ability to have eye lasers, but no rules declare he doesn't. How does that work out in Iserth's game?

It would seem that you'd be hoist on your own petard if you declare they cannot shoot eye lasers. The rules do not say that they cannot.

Rather than give you a fish, I'd like to show you how to fish instead.

Per Basic Rules, page 3, the DM describes the environment, then the players describe what they want to do, at which point the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Sometimes, the DM calls the mechanics into play to resolve uncertainty. This loop is true no matter what is going on in the fiction.

Given this, when a player says "I want to shoot eye lasers at the monster..." - a description of what the player wants to do - what is the next step? Once you have considered this, please consider this other description of what the player wants to do:

"I try to turn the dial to 'S'..."

If you can figure these two things out, then you'll know how it works out in Iserith's game.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Unbiasedly based on facts. The fact that Sherlock Holmes has an above average intelligence paired with the fact that a 5 INT is below average objectively leads to the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes cannot have a 5 INT. By definition, even.

But what is the player doing to "act like Sherlock Holmes"? Can a lower intelligence individual try to emulate and imitate a smarter individual he's met? Because it seems like your issue is that the 5 Int PC is roleplaying like a smarter person. Considering the fact that I've seen many actors portray the greatest detective, I think it is safe to say that you do not need to be as smart as Sherlock Holmes to act like him.

Now if you are moving the debate to whether a 5 Int PC can accomplish feats of deduction to uncover clues, like Sherlock Holmes, then we find that -3 skill check puts a huge damper on being able to pull that off. Which solves that sticky wicket.

So what is the issue again?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Rather than give you a fish, I'd like to show you how to fish instead.

Per Basic Rules, page 3, the DM describes the environment, then the players describe what they want to do, at which point the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Sometimes, the DM calls the mechanics into play to resolve uncertainty. This loop is true no matter what is going on in the fiction.

Given this, when a player says "I want to shoot eye lasers at the monster..." - a description of what the player wants to do - what is the next step? Once you have considered this, please consider this other description of what the player wants to do:

"I try to turn the dial to 'S'..."

If you can figure these two things out, then you'll know how it works out in Iserith's game.

I see. I ask a direct question, and you refuse to answer it, instead beating around the bush and providing a supposed 'lesson' in how 'Iserth runs his game.' Do you enjoy being intentionally obstructionist?

I have no idea how you would rule. You, on one hand, compare the outcome to how you'd rule the 'turn the dial to S', which, despite you never explicitly saying, you've heavily implied that such actions would be allowed in your game. Under that example, then lasers would shoot out of the player's eyes and defeat the monster, no roll necessary. However, that's in contrast to your other statements, where you ask for rolls for things that may be in question. Given actually firing laser beams from your eyes is somewhat questionable, you may ask for a check, perhaps a CHA check to convince the universe that you can shoot lasers from your eyes. And then there's the example of the frog taking an IQ test, where you're actually fully on record with a concrete answer that this would never happen in your games because frogs cannot take IQ tests. Given that's not in the rules, I'm left wondering if you would decide that shooting lasers from your eyes is similarly impossible, and then declare that the player tries to do so, but no lasers appear, next player.

So, in taking the confusing lessons of Iserth to heart, in and in attempt to fish with those lessons, I have three outcomes that you've endorsed, and no way to tell which you'd pick. Your lesson has been poorly presented, and I again ask you to clarify, directly, what your actual course of action would be. Is it a) lasers shoot out and defeat the monster (the dial turns to 'S'); b) you ask for a check to shoot the lasers, success meaning the lasers shoot and defeat the monster, failure means they don't and you look somewhat foolish (uncertain outcome, establish stakes and ask for a check); c) the laser shooting fails outright (frogs can't take IQ tests); or d) some other answer?

 

[Ovinomancer]

But what is the player doing to "act like Sherlock Holmes"? Can a lower intelligence individual try to emulate and imitate a smarter individual he's met? Because it seems like your issue is that the 5 Int PC is roleplaying like a smarter person. Considering the fact that I've seen many actors portray the greatest detective, I think it is safe to say that you do not need to be as smart as Sherlock Holmes to act like him.

Now if you are moving the debate to whether a 5 Int PC can accomplish feats of deduction to uncover clues, like Sherlock Holmes, then we find that -3 skill check puts a huge damper on being able to pull that off. Which solves that sticky wicket.

So what is the issue again?

That falls into my previously state category of an ironic portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. The player knows that they will often fail to effectively portray Sherlock Holmes due to the fact that they will often fail challenges Sherlock should succeed at due to their low ability. However, they choose to portray a delusion of capability and can try to act like Sherlock otherwise. This is ironic because the player will know they cannot succeed as Sherlock, but plays the character out anyway.

I'm speaking only to an attempt to ignore the ability score and attempt the role of Sherlock non-ironically. As you noted previous, this would seem to indicate bad faith on the part of the player.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That falls into my previously state category of an ironic portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. The player knows that they will often fail to effectively portray Sherlock Holmes due to the fact that they will often fail challenges Sherlock should succeed at due to their low ability. However, they choose to portray a delusion of capability and can try to act like Sherlock otherwise. This is ironic because the player will know they cannot succeed as Sherlock, but plays the character out anyway.

I'm speaking only to an attempt to ignore the ability score and attempt the role of Sherlock non-ironically. As you noted previous, this would seem to indicate bad faith on the part of the player.

Are you saying you've never met anyone who tries to act smarter than they really are? I know I have. All the time. Seems all too common even here on ENWorld...

 

[iserith]

I see. I ask a direct question, and you refuse to answer it, instead beating around the bush and providing a supposed 'lesson' in how 'Iserth runs his game.' Do you enjoy being intentionally obstructionist?

I have no idea how you would rule. You, on one hand, compare the outcome to how you'd rule the 'turn the dial to S', which, despite you never explicitly saying, you've heavily implied that such actions would be allowed in your game. Under that example, then lasers would shoot out of the player's eyes and defeat the monster, no roll necessary. However, that's in contrast to your other statements, where you ask for rolls for things that may be in question. Given actually firing laser beams from your eyes is somewhat questionable, you may ask for a check, perhaps a CHA check to convince the universe that you can shoot lasers from your eyes. And then there's the example of the frog taking an IQ test, where you're actually fully on record with a concrete answer that this would never happen in your games because frogs cannot take IQ tests. Given that's not in the rules, I'm left wondering if you would decide that shooting lasers from your eyes is similarly impossible, and then declare that the player tries to do so, but no lasers appear, next player.

So, in taking the confusing lessons of Iserth to heart, in and in attempt to fish with those lessons, I have three outcomes that you've endorsed, and no way to tell which you'd pick. Your lesson has been poorly presented, and I again ask you to clarify, directly, what your actual course of action would be. Is it a) lasers shoot out and defeat the monster (the dial turns to 'S'); b) you ask for a check to shoot the lasers, success meaning the lasers shoot and defeat the monster, failure means they don't and you look somewhat foolish (uncertain outcome, establish stakes and ask for a check); c) the laser shooting fails outright (frogs can't take IQ tests); or d) some other answer?

I see that you are struggling which is odd because this game is designed so that even children can play it. Let me try again. You're the player and I'm the DM.

1. I tell you what's going on in the scene.
2. You tell me what you want to do.
3. I consider whether the outcome is certain or uncertain.
4. If it's certain, I narrate the result. If it's uncertain, I call for a check of some kind, then narrate the result.

Now you're the DM.

1. If a PC has no means to shoot lasers out of his or her eyes, is the outcome certain or uncertain?
2. If there is nothing physically obstructing a PC from turning a dial to "S," is the outcome certain or uncertain?
3. If a frog tries to take an IQ test, is the outcome certain or uncertain?

 

[BoldItalic]

I'm uncertain how you came to the conclusion that Sherlock never did anything Nearly Impossible with his intelligence, given that many of the things he's accredited for were viewed as impossible to actually do, but, nevertheless, I concede that you since you're the author of this example you have the authority to set DCs however you want.

He didn't do anything that was impossible. If he did it, it was by definition possible. My contention is that nether did he do anything that was nearly impossible.

The bane is that a single Investigation check does not cover the scope of the mental feats performed by Sherlock Holmes.
...

Feel free to represent a story as a sequence of checks. It makes no difference.

Given Sherlock only ever met one other person in his intellectual weight class, I'd like to know where all of the 11th level 20 Intelligence Detectives are that can easily match Sherlock's ability.

An interesting question. Conan Doyle didn't write about them. Perhaps some other author could write a story about a super-sleuth who does the apparently impossible and outsmarts Sherlock Holmes? Perhaps someone already has; I wouldn't necessarily know.

 

[BoldItalic]

Unbiasedly based on facts. The fact that Sherlock Holmes has an above average intelligence paired with the fact that a 5 INT is below average objectively leads to the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes cannot have a 5 INT. By definition, even.

Nope. Because

1. Sherlock Holmes having an above average intelligence is not a fact
2. 5 Int is not below average for Sherlock Holmes. It is average, over a population of 1. Therefore that is not a fact either.
3. Your argument is not unbiassed. You are citing as facts things that aren't, to give it a spurious air of credibility.

 

[BoldItalic]

I have no idea how you would rule.

Without speaking for @iserith (who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself) I'll help you out by saying how I would handle this as DM.

Player: "I shoot my eye lasers at the monster"
DM: "Your laser beams bounce harmlessly off the monster's ears, zip around the room and happen to illuminate a small crack, high up on the north wall. A small amount of dust falls from the crack and causes you to sneeze. Paladin's turn next."

Don't just say no, make the consequences add to the narrative. If the player does something silly, make the consequences correspondingly silly and move on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

He didn't do anything that was impossible. If he did it, it was by definition possible. My contention is that nether did he do anything that was nearly impossible.

I stated that Sherlock Holmes has at least an above average intelligence, and that a 5 INT represents a below average intelligence, therefore Sherlock Holmes cannot have a 5 INT. This logically sound. One must attack and show that the premises of this argument are false to show the conclusion false.

Instead, you have created a scenario in which a 5 INT character can, rarely, achieve a great deed of investigation. This doesn't address either of the premises of my argument. You've violated those premises to even present your argument.

As, as for the DC you set, you've set the level of that great deed just at the maximum possible number achievable by that 5 INT character, which is suspiciously fortuitous for your argument. When asked, you state that you state that you don't think he did anything warranting moving into the next difficulty class of 'nearly impossible' because, I gather, of reasons. I plainly think that you must assume that Sherlock did nothing nearly impossible because that would invalidate your argument if he had. But this is a flawed argument as well, as your very construct, with a mere bump to a 6 INT, is just as likely to do something nearly impossible as your 5 INT construct is to do something almost nearly impossible. Given that a 20 INT construct can easily surpass feats of difficulty far in excess of the boundry of 'nearly impossible' you are arguing that the feats actually achieved by Sherlock Holmes are accomplished by smart men with training (positive INT modifier, expertise in investigation, at least level 5), and exceeded often by very smart men with much training (+3 or greater INT modifier, expertise in investigation, level 10 or greater). You've invented a world in which Sherlock Holmes, the greatest detective ever, isn't noteworthy compared to the others of his class. This fails to even capture the essence of Sherlock Holmes, meaning that whatever you've invented, it's not Sherlock Holmes.

Feel free to represent a story as a sequence of checks. It makes no difference.

Unless you postulate that your character rolls an uncanny sequences of 20's, yes, it does make a differ

An interesting question. Conan Doyle didn't write about them. Perhaps some other author could write a story about a super-sleuth who does the apparently impossible and outsmarts Sherlock Holmes? Perhaps someone already has; I wouldn't necessarily know.[/QUOTE]

Sherlock is described in ACD's stories as one of the most intelligent men alive, if not the most intelligent. Watson routine describes Sherlock in terms that makes it clear that Sherlock isn't a middling detective amongst other, more successful detectives, but is one of if not the greatest detectives alive. So, yes, ACD does mention all of the other fantastic detectives -- he mentions that Sherlock is better than they are, and that the gulf between them is vast.