D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Dannyalcatraz]

And did anybody get this reference?

View attachment 76042​

Sure, but I don't think anyone commented on it because it was a pretty obvious one. I didn't like it with that particular strip, so good call there.

*ahem*
Someone failed an Int roll and missed an obvious play on words...

Callvan sounds both low Wis and delusional, not low Int. He may also need to tell his tiger to get stuffed...

(bolded for emphasis)

 

[Dausuul]

I have long thought the book description of Intelligence (and to a lesser extent Wisdom) should be junked.

Str, Dex, Con, and Cha determine your chances of success for a given task. You, the player, can have your character try anything you can think of; if your stats are unsuited to the task, you'll probably fail, but you can still make the attempt. However, because of the way the book describes Int and Wis, a lot of people see them as limiting what the player can do. If you the player come up with a brilliant idea, but your character isn't as intelligent as you are, you have to forget you ever had that idea. You can't act on it.

For most D&D players, all the things that Int purports to measure, we excel at. By any reasonable standard, the majority of players are Int 16+. So, if you want to "roleplay your character," you have three choices:

1. Constantly second-guess your decisions. Whenever you have an idea that you, the player, think is really clever, it's likely too smart for your PC. Forget it.
2. Play a wizard.
3. Play a non-wizard, and put 16+ in Int.

If I had my way, Intelligence would be renamed Lore, and it would represent simply your knowledge of the game world. You decide for yourself how smart your character is, without reference to the rules. You roll Lore skills to question the DM about things your character knows but you don't, just as you roll Perception to question the DM about things your character sees. If you have a low Lore, your character can be whip-smart, but you're uneducated. Anything you want to know about the game world, you have to find out in-game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But that's terrible. If he has a +4 from Int and a -7 due to circumstances that are always applicable, just give him a 5 Int, and achieve the exact same result. Stats are not definitional. They exist only as a game mechanic. Your character concept is rooted only in the description you give for your character.

1) Stats ARE definitional

2) as I noted, 2 of the examples involved deception and delusion- RP, so not involving actual failures based on mechanics- and the other 2 were not always applicable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

1) Stats ARE definitional

So this thread, like many a similar one, is turning into "yes they are" "no they aren't".

Obviously neither side can prove their belief. But what exactly is lost by saying that stats are NOT definitional? That you can define it to mean whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect game mechanics? What are you afraid of happening?

In the four example characters, as long as I describe the reason when I fail the roll, why do you care whether it's because my character is dumb vs. distracted (or whatever). Yes, as I've said, that makes me work harder. But, again, why do you care?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I
Str, Dex, Con, and Cha determine your chances of success for a given task. You, the player, can have your character try anything you can think of; if your stats are unsuited to the task, you'll probably fail, but you can still make the attempt. However, because of the way the book describes Int and Wis, a lot of people see them as limiting what the player can do. If you the player come up with a brilliant idea, but your character isn't as intelligent as you are, you have to forget you ever had that idea. You can't act on it.

Yes. So what? All stats- Int & Wis included- in some way describe character capabilities and limits. That is what they are, that is what they do. Just like a low-Dex character is probably unlikely to be a good juggler or a low-Cha character unlikely to be an effective and successful diplomat, a low-Int character is unlikely to be a good alchemist. That's game mechanics.

For most D&D players, all the things that Int purports to measure, we excel at. By any reasonable standard, the majority of players are Int 16+. So, if you want to "roleplay your character," you have three choices:

1. Constantly second-guess your decisions. Whenever you have an idea that you, the player, think is really clever, it's likely too smart for your PC. Forget it.
2. Play a wizard.
3. Play a non-wizard, and put 16+ in Int.

I'm a pretty smart guy, and I have noooooo problem roleplaying low-int characters.

For the most part, if I have a clever idea while running such a PC, I DO put it aside, unless is think there's a particular reason why that character might have come to the same conclusion. A low-Int fighter who was a stable hand before becoming an adventurer might have some insight into equine behavior that inspires him to come up with or influence "The Plan" the party wants to use to capture a Pegasus.

And if I DO, I then ask the DM if my PC has that flash of inspiration. The responses to that have generally been either "Yes" or yes with the caveat of making a roll...usually with bonuses.

As for playing smart non-Wizards...why the hell not? One of the most recent 3.5Ed characters I played was a high-Int Ranger. He was very skilled. Ditto a similarly brainy Fighter/Thief.

 

[TwoSix]

1) Stats ARE definitional

2) as I noted, 2 of the examples involved deception and delusion- RP, so not involving actual failures based on mechanics- and the other 2 were not always applicable.

The deception is immaterial. If you get a 3 on an Arcana check, and the DM tells you the wrong information, and that's what you use in the game, it doesn't matter if you narrate it as "I secretly knew the right answer but my patron convinced me not to tell anyone."

It's like objecting to a Daredevil character having a 20 Dex just because he's blind. Or, to use a personal, real-world example, one my current characters is a (houseruled race) hobgoblin sorcerer with 7 Str. I've described him as a big, burly guy...with a crippled right arm. He can use it to hold an arcane focus, but that's about it. I simply narrate him as never using melee attacks, and when he does fail athletic checks (not as often as one would think, since he has expertise due to a racial feature), it's usually because his arm isn't usable for the task. If he succeeds, it's something he's figured out how to do with one arm.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I have long thought the book description of Intelligence (and to a lesser extent Wisdom) should be junked.

Str, Dex, Con, and Cha determine your chances of success for a given task. You, the player, can have your character try anything you can think of; if your stats are unsuited to the task, you'll probably fail, but you can still make the attempt. However, because of the way the book describes Int and Wis, a lot of people see them as limiting what the player can do. If you the player come up with a brilliant idea, but your character isn't as intelligent as you are, you have to forget you ever had that idea. You can't act on it.

My brother has a PC with a 5 INT in our secondary 3.5 game and he acts that way. We are playing a tournament module and he just figures he can't help in any way when we are trying to figure out a puzzle or riddle. I'm of the mind that his PC has mechanical penalties as a result of his INT but that shouldn't stop him from being involved in the game. Your PC is a moron but has brief moments of clarity or inspiration, whatever.

 

[MostlyDm]

Ignoring the game in order to explain the int penalty by using descriptions that apply to other stats than int is a waste of time.



By RAW that's not all intelligence means. RAW defines defines intelligence as...



Those are the things that need to be used in the descriptions to explain deficiencies, not descriptions of non-int stats.

If you re-read my statement you will note that I didn't say his exercise met the RAW (or RAI!) description of intelligence. All I said is that his exercise accounted for the basic game mechanics of a low int. You're not quoting game mechanics, here, you're quoting the (arguably more important) general rules of what Intelligence refers to.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't find it acceptable to only cover the bare game mechanics of low intelligence. I'm sort of on the the fence about it, personally. I don't think I'd ever do it myself, but if I had a player that wanted to try it I'd give it a shot because I tend to let my players try pretty much anything.

Given bounded accuracy and the fact that a 5 Int character can succeed at moderately difficult Intelligence checks on occasion, it perhaps makes more sense than in any previous edition.

As an aside, I hate that by default we only get one level of quoting in this forum. Totally fragments the discussion. And manually adding in nested quotes is a pain on mobile.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So this thread, like many a similar one, is turning into "yes they are" "no they aren't".

Obviously neither side can prove their belief. But what exactly is lost by saying that stats are NOT definitional? That you can define it to mean whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect game mechanics? What are you afraid of happening?

In the four example characters, as long as I describe the reason when I fail the roll, why do you care whether it's because my character is dumb vs. distracted (or whatever). Yes, as I've said, that makes me work harder. But, again, why do you care?

I've never been a fan of exception-based character design between NPCs and PCs, and tend to avoid games that code it into their mechanics. If an NPC can do X, so to- potentially- can a PC. And vice versa.

What is being described here is exception-based character design between PCs, and one that is not explicit. It is an option available if and only if the player realizes the DM plays like that. IOW, the DM is rewarding only clever players who know him.

That isn't oft-decried reliance on system mastery, that's "DM mastery". If I'm the new guy at the table and nobody thinks to enlighten me, I am very literally not playing the same game as the others at the table.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The deception is immaterial.

No it isn't. There is a world of difference between actually failing a roll due to a penalty as you describe and- as Elfcrusher described- and actually having succeeded the roll and lying to others about it.
In the former, the PC failed to get the desired info due to a mechanical failure. In the second, the PC HAS the desired info and can act upon it...or suffer repercussions if it is revealed the PC knew the correct answer all along.

Consider the Sphinx issue: if the party encounters the Sphinx riddle and the PC fails, he risks being eaten. But if the PC succeeds in figuring out the riddle but lies about it, he can wait until all the others are Sphinx Snacks and then answer the question properly, without ever having been at risk.