D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Ovinomancer]

Well sure, but that's just pawn stance play, which goes back to OD&D (and is quite common in OSR play as well). It prioritizes smart gameplay by the player over inhabitation of the character's "personality".

And it's a playstyle difference, which means that there will always be nuh-huh/nuh-uh arguments over it. I don't think that Elfcrusher is taking into account that his entire argument is a playstyle argument, and will be argued with as such.

 

[discosoc]

Most of the OP's examples sound like high INT and low WIS or CHA.

 

[Ovinomancer]

General agreement, just calling out this one thing as a pet peeve.

It wasn't Gandalf who got the Fellowship through the Gate of Moria, after all. So if the game plays out that way, great!

I've often seen this argument, and if presented as the genius doesn't always solve the riddle, it's good, but when, as more commonly, it's used as an example of the fool or low intelligence character solving the riddle, it just sucks. For one, Frodo isn't dumb by a longshot. He's quite mentally capable, as was his uncle Bilbo. And riddling is established as a favorite pastime of hobbits, with Bilbo being established as quite good with riddles (having defeated the Gollum version of the Sphinx). This is an example of the smart, but not genius, guy who does riddles as a hobby solving the riddle rather than the genius of a wizard. It's not a very good example of a disparity in mental ability.

 

[TwoSix]

And it's a playstyle difference, which means that there will always be nuh-huh/nuh-uh arguments over it. I don't think that Elfcrusher is taking into account that his entire argument is a playstyle argument, and will be argued with as such.

I see quite the opposite. [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has said he's well aware it's a playstyle difference (he's used the term "aesthetic preference" in several posts). He just thinks it's bad because it disallows character concepts in the name of a consistency he sees having little value (and I don't either, which is part of the reason I agree with his argument.)

 

[Yardiff]

"Cutesy" yes, but not technically ad hominem; I was trying to colorfully suggest that objections are really based on an overly narrow restriction on how to interpret ability scores. Or perhaps an aesthetic dislike of the consequences.

But changing the meaning of Int this way is really no different...literally absolutely identical...to refluffing the description of a spell or a weapon. "My longsword is actually a katana." I can understand the aesthetic objection (and share it, in many cases) but my objections are entirely subjective.



I'll agree that roleplaying Eloelle and Calivan would be harder, and all four of them would be harder than simply taking the default (boring?) interpretation of low Int. If the most erotic text that Deuce can find is "How to Torture a Modron" then the player better think quick to explain why he got distracted, or possibly introduce a new, hitherto undiscovered fetish to his personality (or roll well so he doesn't have to). Heck, maybe this is where we learn that his beloved is a Modron.

I'll also suggest that at my tables the player would be free to decide what kind of book he finds in order to support his storytelling. I suspect, given the conversation in another thread, that somebody like [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would say the content of he bookshelves is strictly the DM's domain.



That's a Parade of Horribles argument. (Or, dare I say, a genuine Slippery Slope?) Going down that path doesn't have to lead to mechanical impact if the DM doesn't allow it to.

Again, what I'm describing is not different from refluffing spells or gear....just harder to roleplay. Do you object to that, when there's no mechanical change? Or does letting the player describe his longsword as a katana risk him suddenly doing more damage because, you know, katanas are better in every way?

Was THIS post another attempt at humor?

 

[Guest 6801328]

If I had a character who wanted to use the "actually knows but voices tell her not to say" explanation, I would insist that they obey the dice. So if they failed a lethal intelligence check (to identify cyanide or whatever), I would expect their character does what the voices say even unto death. Thats the whole shtick of the character.

Exactly. That's the simple answer to all of Danny's objections. His concerns about what might happen are only a problem if the player suddenly abandons the roleplaying premise. And even then it's only a problem in that his character concept becomes paradoxical.

Example:

Jezebel: "Sorry, I don't know the answer to the riddle."
Friends: "But...but...but..." (eaten by Sphinx)
Jezebel: "Ok, now that I'm the last one alive I'm going to actually give the Sphinx the right answer."
DM: "Um...ok...what is it?"
Jezebel: "You tell me, I'm a genius."
DM: "Nope. You failed the roll. This is your character, you describe it."
Jezebel: "But I'm a genius!"
DM: "You failed the roll. How you narrate the reasons for that failure is up to you."
Jezebel: "Ah, got it. Well, having my Patron devour my soul for a millennium is worse than being eaten by a Sphinx, so I'll keep the secret intact all the way to my grave."
DM: "Nice. Take Inspiration for that."
Jezebel: "..."

etc.

@Dannyalcatraz: do you see how your concern is unjustified? It's the player's responsibility to sustain their RP concept; they don't get to modify the mechanics of the game to suit their story. They still have to abide by the mechanics.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Was THIS post another attempt at humor?

Given the wide variation on what people consider "roleplaying" to be, I think I'll avoid getting into a debate about what is funny.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And it's a playstyle difference, which means that there will always be nuh-huh/nuh-uh arguments over it. I don't think that Elfcrusher is taking into account that his entire argument is a playstyle argument, and will be argued with as such.

Whuh....??? It's entirely about playstyle, and not at all about mechanics/rules. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. Sorry if that hasn't been clear.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've understood your position the whole time. I'm just not buying it.

If forced to tell the truth via magic, the character who fails his roll and doesn't know the answer will not be able to provide the answer, but the character who DOES know the answer but lied will be forced to supply the correct answer, even if it means having their soul nibbled on for eternity.. That isn't RP, that's mechanics.

The genius ranger who defers to his tiger* (who is not burning so bright in the forest of the night) is not hindered if his tiger is not around.. That isn't RP, that's a campaign situation.

Etc.





* and, as originally stated, only on certain rolls, not ALL Int based checks

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've understood your position the whole time. I'm just not buying it.

If forced to tell the truth via magic, the character who fails his roll and doesn't know the answer will not be able to provide the answer, but the character who DOES know the answer but lied will be forced to supply the correct answer, even if it means having their soul nibbled on for eternity.. That isn't RP, that's mechanics.

The genius ranger who defers to his tiger* (who is not burning so bright in the forest of the night) is not hindered if his tiger is not around.. That isn't RP, that's a campaign situation.

Etc.

* and, as originally stated, only on certain rolls, not ALL Int based checks

Sure, it could get hard for the player to continue to RP, but there's always options, and the onus is entirely on the player to figure out how (although hopefully the other participants would enjoy the character enough to make helpful suggestions in the tricky spots). "Because I'm a genius, I easily resist the evil sorcerer's Truth Magic, and I tell her that I don't know the answer." And that's ok because it's the exact same outcome as not knowing the answer and failing the saving throw.