D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Maxperson]

Huh? I don't recall "conceding" that re-fluffing requires a house rule. I don't even think of it as a "rule" because it's not changing mechanics. But, yeah, it's re-fluffing. No more, no less.

Please quote the page that says that a rule has to be mechanical in nature. I don't see it and as far as I can tell, if I make a rule that someone has to bring cheetos, it's a rule. A rule that defines what int it, is still a rule.

 

[Maxperson]

J.F.C., Danny, I can't believe you aren't getting this. Eloelle failed her Int check so mechanically she does not know the answer. Everything else...the part about her knowing it but keeping it secret because of her Patron...is storytelling. If she passes the ZoT saving throw she does whatever she wants. If she fails she fails so she has to tell the truth, but she narrates it as succeeding and hiding the truth.

You can't narrate it like that. The caster KNOWS your PC failed the save, so narrating a successful save doesn't work. Also, if your PC fails the save and narrate a lie, you are directly going counter to the mechanic that says you cannot lie. The truth is that she doesn't know, so any other answer is a lie she cannot tell, no matter how you wish to narrate it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Please quote the page that says that a rule has to be mechanical in nature. I don't see it and as far as I can tell, if I make a rule that someone has to bring cheetos, it's a rule. A rule that defines what int it, is still a rule.

Max, Max, Max....

We've gone over this. But let's do it yet again. I believe you are referring to the quotes on page 177 of the PHB:

Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.

(If you have more "rules" in mind, please share them.)

Please note those "rules" don't actually specify what the relationship is between the Intelligence score and those tasks/abilities/aptitudes. Just that "Intelligence measures them" and "an Intelligence check comes into play".

Well, the type of roleplaying I'm talking about fully complies with both of those requirements. I'm measuring mental acuity, etc., by making an Intelligence check (or a check of an Int skill). Likewise an Intelligence check does come into play when my characters need to draw on logic et. al.

So exactly what rule am I breaking?

I'd still argue that those aren't rules because they aren't specific enough to be rules, as this little exercise between us pals has revealed. But, hey, if you think they're rules, I'm still in compliance.

 

[Maxperson]

We've gone over this. But let's do it yet again. I believe you are referring to the quotes on page 177 of the PHB:

You aren't getting out of it that easily. Quote the page that says rules have to be mechanical in nature or they aren't rules.

Please note those "rules" don't actually specify what the relationship is between the Intelligence score and those tasks/abilities/aptitudes. Just that "Intelligence measures them" and "an Intelligence check comes into play".

Right. INT measures them, not charisma, not insanity, and not love.

Well, the type of roleplaying I'm talking about fully complies with both of those requirements. I'm measuring mental acuity, etc., by making an Intelligence check (or a check of an Int skill). Likewise an Intelligence check does come into play when my characters need to draw on logic et. al.

If by fully, you mean none, then you are correct. The int score itself is the measure of those attributes. Nothing else. At least as it is written.

I'd still argue that those aren't rules because they aren't specific enough to be rules, as this little exercise between us pals has revealed. But, hey, if you think they're rules, I'm still in compliance.

They're very specific. Intelligence, and in D&D intelligence refers to the score, measures mental acuity, reasoning ability and so on. That's specific.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You can't narrate it like that. The caster KNOWS your PC failed the save, so narrating a successful save doesn't work.

OH.....MY.....GOD. You are metagaming. You dirty little metagamer. What do you mean the NPC caster "knows" that I failed the save?

(Admit it...it feels kind of good, in a naughty way, doesn't it?)

Also, if your PC fails the save and narrate a lie, you are directly going counter to the mechanic that says you cannot lie. The truth is that she doesn't know, so any other answer is a lie she cannot tell, no matter how you wish to narrate it.

You're getting all tangled up here, like Danny. I'm not narrating a lie when I say I don't know the answer, because my character didn't actually *have* the answer. The RP that says I did doesn't actually change the game state.

(And, of course, if I passed the original Int check and I *do* know the information, and then I fail the saving throw versus ZoT, I can explain that that trivial little spell had no influence on my superior intellect, but my Patron whispered to me and said, "Give the information to the evil sorcerer, my little pawn...this is all part of my grand scheme. And make it sound realistic.")

It's really quite trivial to avoid altering the game state dictated by the dice, or otherwise introducing paradoxes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You aren't getting out of it that easily. Quote the page that says rules have to be mechanical in nature or they aren't rules.

That's so cute. You say "getting out of it" like you sprung some kind of clever trap. Ok, how's this: "No, you." Show me the page that says every line of text in the book is a rule.

As a simple analysis of the stuff on Int scores demonstrates, if it doesn't actually state a mechanical effect then it really can't be a rule.

Right. INT measures them, not charisma, not insanity, and not love.

Right with you there. I'm definitely not proposing to measure them with Cha, nor "insanity" or "love", which are not attributes in the game. But if you want to introduce them I won't ask you to show me the rule that says you can.

If by fully, you mean none, then you are correct. The int score itself is the measure of those attributes. Nothing else. At least as it is written.

Well, read more carefully. It also uses the Int-based skills (Nature, History, etc.)

In any event, I'm doing that. The only modifiers I'm talking about using are Int and skills. So full compliance there.

They're very specific. Intelligence, and in D&D intelligence refers to the score, measures mental acuity, reasoning ability and so on. That's specific.

Yup, and that's what I'm doing. My Int score says I get a -3 on those things, and I'm using that modifier correctly.

Max...OPEN YOUR EYES. Nothing in the language specifies how to use the Int score to measure those things. Just that it should be used. Maybe I'm not doing it in the most obvious way, but it doesn't say "...measures them in the most obvious way..." does it?

If the instructions say to use a hammer to build a house, and I melt down the hammer and pound it into a thin sheet that I fold into a house, I followed instructions, no?

EDIT: And this is why a lot of the book clearly isn't "rules". It's just not specific enough to be useful as a rule.

 

[Maxperson]

OH.....MY.....GOD. You are metagaming. You dirty little metagamer. What do you mean the NPC caster "knows" that I failed the save?

Don't act obtuse. He knows you have to tell the truth, or else he knows that you don't have to tell the truth.

You're getting all tangled up here, like Danny. I'm not narrating a lie when I say I don't know the answer, because my character didn't actually *have* the answer. The RP that says I did doesn't actually change the game state.

Then the RP is nothing more than insanity, and your character never actually knows anything on a failed int check. Heck, it's not even really much RP, since nobody knows that you have the don't have the answer, but think you do, but are keeping a secret. It's all internal. All anyone else knows is that you share info when you succeed, and don't when you fail. Kinda like everyone else.

When you fail the save, since you don't know the answer and the caster KNOWS you can't lie, you have to say that you don't know. You can't roleplay a successful save.

(And, of course, if I passed the original Int check and I *do* know the information, and then I fail the saving throw versus ZoT, I can explain that that trivial little spell had no influence on my superior intellect, but my Patron whispered to me and said, "Give the information to the evil sorcerer, my little pawn...this is all part of my grand scheme. And make it sound realistic.")

No, you can't say that at all. There is no patron, so it's not the truth that the patron gave you the info and you can't lie if you fail. Also, the caster knows for a fact that the spell did have influence on you. These pesky mechanics that get in the way.

 

[Maxperson]

That's so cute. You say "getting out of it" like you sprung some kind of clever trap. Ok, how's this: "No, you." Show me the page that says every line of text in the book is a rule.

No trap. You're just dodging the issue because you know that you can't back up your claim.

As a simple analysis of the stuff on Int scores demonstrates, if it doesn't actually state a mechanical effect then it really can't be a rule.

A game defined statement about what int represents is a rule.

Right with you there. I'm definitely not proposing to measure them with Cha, nor "insanity" or "love", which are not attributes in the game. But if you want to introduce them I won't ask you to show me the rule that says you can.

That's what all four of your ideas measured int with. Two of them were insane, one used love, and the last used low charisma, since that's the stat that represents low self-esteem and such.

Well, read more carefully. It also uses the Int-based skills (Nature, History, etc.)

Those skills use int, not the other way around. Int is not defined as nature, history, etc. Those things just use reasoning, mental acuity and so on, so they are dependent on int.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No more contrived than the reason why a regular sorcerer can't carry around a big basket of bat guano to cast fireball a zillion times. Spell slots have always come from the caster, not the components. Changing them to a deck of cards changes nothing about that.

I think I need to expand on this one. Maybe I didn't understand what you were claiming, but here's how I was looking at it:

The rules don't limit your spellcasting by availability of material components, but by spell slots. So a sorcerer simply carrying around a big basket of components isn't actually challenging that rule. He's gonna run out of spell slots long before he runs out of components. (And the DM should probably bring encumbrance rules into play as well.)

In my example of the Sorcerer with the deck of cards, he was narrating his spellcasting as being the result of throwing these cards, and that he had specific cards that different things. He was complying with the rules, but nothing in his fluff reflected those rules.

So a more apt analogy would be if your sorcerer with the basket of spell components also claimed that he could cast as many spells as he wanted, as long as he had the material components. Now, as long as he just talks about it and doesn't actually *do* it (that is, he never exceeds the spellcasting that would be permitted by the rules, however he narrates it) then I'd be fine with it. Just like I'm fine with the deck of cards sorcerer throwing cards instead of casting spells, as long as by doing so he doesn't exceed the spells per day defined by his class and level.

I see these cases as perfectly analogues to the 5 Int story: in both cases the player is re-writing the official description of something, but not actually changing anything mechanically.

According to what you and Max and Danny have written I would assume you would have a big problem with both of those examples, because once you allow the player to narrate it that way, what's to prevent him from actually demanding that he gets to cast more spells. Or, as I suggested before, what happens if he gets charmed by a Vampire who then orders him to keep casting until he's out of cards/components?

If I've got that wrong, and any of you would *not* object to a sorcerer as described above, then I'm genuinely quite curious why you see the two situations differently.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No trap. You're just dodging the issue because you know that you can't back up your claim.

So does that mean you're dodging, too, when I asked you to demonstrate the inverse?

No, you're not, because we both asked for something silly. Of course I can't show you where it says "not everything in this rulebook is a rule" any more than I can show you the part where it says "the dragons in this game are make believe". I'd be disappointed in WotC if they wasted page space enumerating things that are obviously true.

That's what all four of your ideas measured int with. Two of them were insane, one used love, and the last used low charisma, since that's the stat that represents low self-esteem and such.

I sort of get what you're trying to say, but your words aren't saying it. I did not measure Int with insanity, love, or charisma. I think you're trying to say that I used to Int to measure things that you think would be better served with insanity, love, or charisma. Those are two very different sentences.

But I didn't. I used Int to measure Int. My character has a low Int score, and when rolling Int skills I apply that modifier. I'm doing it exactly like the rules say.

Those skills use int, not the other way around. Int is not defined as nature, history, etc. Those things just use reasoning, mental acuity and so on, so they are dependent on int.

Not disagreeing with you, but that's not what you wrote in the last post.

I know you just don't like this way of the player riffing on the narrative without the permission of the DM, but the harder you try to find a logical flaw with it (instead of just admitting that it's simply not your play style, which is valid) the more bizarre your arguments become.