D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

I'm not talking about "modelling Holmes".

Everyone in this thread who is talking about a Holmes in D&D is modelling Holmes. If you aren't modelling Holmes, then you have no Holmes like PC in D&D.

Upthread, the question arose - could a character with a less than 18 INT be Holmes? (And the 5 INT Holmes is really just an extreme instance of this more general claim.)

The answer is - if, in play, it turns out that the character with less than 18 INT solves the most puzzles, unveils more dastardluy plots than any other character who is salient in the game, etc - then the answer is "yes".

The answer is absolutely no. It takes more than solving more things than the people around you to be Holmes. You also have to do it to the level of Holmes himself, which is only the very pinnacle of skill and intelligence.

D&D, as actually played, is not a model in any relevant sense. It is the result of the resolution of a series of action declarations. The stats of various characters are just one (and not always the most important) input into that process.

If you are creating in D&D a character from outside of D&D, you are modelling that character.

Now, if I was setting out to play a Holmes-like character, I would try and put a good score into INT because otherwise it may not be that likely that I will turn out to solve more puzzles and unveil more dastardly plots than anyone else. But putting the high score into INT in no way guarantees that I will be Holmes-like. All it does is give me a better shot at having my action declarations generate Holmes-like outcomes.

Which is why in addition to an 18-20 int, you need all those other additions that the 5 int Holmes wannabe has in order to make a Holmes like PC.

As I replied to Maxperson, I am not talking about modelling the fiction of Sherlock Holmes. I'm not talking, for instance, about how I might build a NPC who was Holmes-like by ability and reputation.

If you aren't modelling Holmes, you aren't building an NPC that is Holme-like in ability. You are making one that is inferior.

But if it turns out, in the course of play, that the character in question is in fact unmatched in deduction and plot-solving, then what does it mean to contend that, nevertheless, in some sense that has meaning only in the mechanics but not the fiction, that character is not the best?

It means that he's not the best. Period. Others in the world are better, even if not encountered.

What does it mean to say "there are no rolls in the book"? The whole premise of this discussion is that someone is going to play a Holmes-like character. So we are positing the events of the book as outcomes of the process of a player of the game declaring actions, and then having those actions resolved.

It means that Holmes in the stories is the best with both intelligence and skill at solving things. To be the best at that in D&D, you need a 20 int plus all the extras. That's the only way to be the best.

If we were talking about reading a story, and then projecting a set of D&D stats back onto it, of course it is natural to give Holmes 18 INT rather than 5 INT. But that's not what was being discussed. We're talking about playing a game of D&D, and in the course of that having one of the characters turn out to be Holmes-like.

No. We were talking about objectively proving that 5 is below average and 18 is higher than average. Holmes became the poster child by showing that you could not make a Holmes in D&D with a 5 int. He would have to have an 18+. It was not about having a character turn out to be Holmes like, but even if it was, that PC would still fail if he didn't have an 18+ int and all the extras. He would be the best locally, but he would not be Holmes-like since he is not the best there is.

 

[Maxperson]

The real world is immaterial. We're talking about someone like a Sherlock Holmes analogue in a D&D world, and whether or not an Int 5 character could be played in a way that made the character appear to be an extremely competent detective. When one considers the rather low mechanical impact that Intelligence has in 5e, it's certainly a feasible proposition. It would certainly be easier with a high Intelligence, but that isn't really the debate.

"extremely competent" fails to be a Sherlock Holmes analogue. He is not "extremely competent." He's the best there is. No PC with a 5 int will ever be the best there is. It can't be done.

I'm guessing you're not making a Radiohead reference?

It's a Hitchhikers Guide reference.

 

[Maxperson]

A 5 INT bard or rogue could easily be a great investigator by taking double proficiency. Even at 1st level you'd already have a +1 bonus.

A 20 int bard or rogue will be better, and therefore like Holmes. The 5 int bard or rogue will never be like Holmes since it can't ever be the best and Holmes is the best.

It might be fun to roleplay an INT 5 Investigator. Don't let your table mates see your char sheet or your raw dice rolls and try to convince them that your character is a genius.

That might be true that it would be fun, but it's entirely irrelevant to whether or not you can make Holmes with a 5 int. You can't.

 

[pemerton]

A 20 int bard or rogue will be better, and therefore like Holmes. The 5 int bard or rogue will never be like Holmes since it can't ever be the best and Holmes is the best.

Once again, you are pointing to the real-world mechanical framework, but not telling us anything about the fiction. But it is in the fiction that we see whether or not a character is Holmes-like.

 

[Maxperson]

Once again, you are pointing to the real-world mechanical framework, but not telling us anything about the fiction. But it is in the fiction that we see whether or not a character is Holmes-like.

Holmes Fiction = Best.

D&D Fiction = Best

How do you accomplish Holmes fiction in D&D fiction? By making the best and a 5 int cannot possibly be the best.

It's really easy.

The fiction will show that your PC is not Holmes like by the existence of many NPCs that are better, even if your PC never meets them. It's impossible for your 5 int PC to be Holmes like without the mechanics to back it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A 20 int bard or rogue will be better, and therefore like Holmes. The 5 int bard or rogue will never be like Holmes since it can't ever be the best and Holmes is the best.

Oh that's a slippery slope. You say Holmes is the best, but compared to what? The best possible, or the best in existence? (Or even just the best in existence who also happens to have become an Investigator...?)

Maybe a level 20 double-proficiency bard/rogue with 5 INT would be the best because nobody with 20 INT took double proficiency. The double-proficiency guy would have a higher Investigation bonus than any 20 INT character in existence, and therefore would be the best in existence.

Alternatively, maybe there is a guy with 20 INT and double-proficiency who has just, for the life of the character, rolled really badly. Meanwhile the 5 INT guy has, defying all odds, managed to almost always roll very well. Who is the better Investigator?

 

[Hriston]

False. He uses that as one example, but clearly says, "In place of this, players should try to become that person they are imagining during the course of the game, and conduct the actions of their characters accordingly." That clearly says that if you are playing a stupid PC, you should try to become that person and play the actions accordingly. i.e. stupid.

Once again, you're taking this quote out of context. Gygax is saying, "players should try to become that person they are imagining during the course of the game, and conduct the actions of their characters accordingly," in place of "stilted attempts to act the part of some character." So rather than try to "act the part" of a stupid character (because the character's Intelligence is 5), the player should identify and conflate him or herself with (become) the character, as he or she imagines it, conducting the actions of the character in accordance with that identity and conflation. Unless you imagine your character as stupid, there's nothing here that says you should pretend to be stupid when playing your character. In fact, this is the approach to the game that Gygax says, "tends to make playing out an adventure more of a children’'s 'let'’s pretend' activity."

@Hriston No I didn't confuse words.

Then why did you assert several times that a passage that says nothing about tournament play only applies to tournament play?

In any case, the entire article is an opinion piece with no more weight than any other opinion on these forums.

I don't disagree, but this seems like an odd thing to say after having claimed that it supports your opinion.

(edit: Maybe it's just that I find it amusing that you became dismissive of the article only after its support for your position was called into question.)

 

[Maxperson]

Oh that's a slippery slope. You say Holmes is the best, but compared to what? The best possible, or the best in existence? (Or even just the best in existence who also happens to have become an Investigator...?)

Here. You should read what a Slippery Slope is so you don't misuse it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Maybe a level 20 double-proficiency bard/rogue with 5 INT would be the best because nobody with 20 INT took double proficiency. The double-proficiency guy would have a higher Investigation bonus than any 20 INT character in existence, and therefore would be the best in existence.

First off, the odds of that are only slightly greater than 0. Not worth mentioning. It get even more ludicrous when you add in 6 int, 8 int, 10 int, 12 int, 14 int, 16 int, and 18 int. All of those have to have no double proficiency people as well. Your argument is bupkis because it relies on something that is almost, but not quite statistically impossible.

Alternatively, maybe there is a guy with 20 INT and double-proficiency who has just, for the life of the character, rolled really badly. Meanwhile the 5 INT guy has, defying all odds, managed to almost always roll very well. Who is the better Investigator?

And again with the nearly impossible. You'd have better luck winning the lottery 10 times in a row than for someone to roll that badly thousands and thousands of times, or well in the case of the silly argument that novel Holmes just rolled well every time for his whole life.

Do you have a reasonable argument to put forth?

 

[Shasarak]

I must admit that Sherlock Holmes would not be the first example I would use to describe a 5 Int character.

But he may be a good example to use for a 5 Cha character though.

 

[pemerton]

How do you accomplish Holmes fiction in D&D fiction? By making the best and a 5 int cannot possibly be the best.

<snip>

The fiction will show that your PC is not Holmes like by the existence of many NPCs that are better

in addition to an 18-20 int, you need all those other additions that the 5 int Holmes wannabe has in order to make a Holmes like PC.

<snip>

[Otherwise] It means that he's not the best. Period. Others in the world are better, even if not encountered.

These are claims that I deny.

I've already given an example from my 4e game, where a character who started with both STR and CON well short of starting maximum is nevertheless the toughest dwarf in the gameworld, except for Moradin.

I think a game would have to be relatively unusual for a 5 INT character to turn out to be the best in the gameworld. But it's not impossible - [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], for instance, points to the example of the character with Expertise who rolls well.

Not to mention that there is the issue of how characters are framed into the fiction. Even if an NPC has better mechanical bonuses, does s/he actually solve any nefarious plots, or make any important deductions? In many D&D campaigns, the most important of these things are the province of the PCs.

I can imagine a campaign in which the NPCs do more important stuff than the PCs. But I wouldn't be inclined to run such a game myself, nor play in it.