D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Guest 6801328]

I think I'm done debating this, but it's actually been very helpful. I started off thinking it instinctively that it works fine and there's no harm in doing it, but being pushed to explain it and to address weird edge cases helped me to clarify my own thinking. It's pretty clear to me that this approach works just fine and doesn't break any rules. Although it really does seem to bother some people. Very strange.

Thanks, all.

 

[Maxperson]

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" and 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.

First, I asked you and you dodged and then asked me. You don't get to expect me to answer first, so.......after you. Second, it's a fact that rules don't have to have mechanics attached to them. Grocery stores have rules on which doors you go in and out of. I ignore those rules routinely because there are no mechanics attached and nothing will happen if I don't go by the rule. Third, it's not silly at all. You made a claim that the ONLY rules are ones with mechanics. I didn't make the claim that everything in the book was a rule. Only you are asking for something silly, as well as claiming something silly.

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.

You used insanity in two instances to represent a 5 int score. That's using insanity to measure int, since without that insanity, your examples would have genius level int scores. The same with love and the charisma descriptive. Int isn't measuring them, they are measuring the int.

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.

Not mine. You're the one claiming all kinds of bizarre things like, "I can fail my save and act like I made it, even though the spell says the caster knows that I failed, then I can lie even though I have to tell the truth." in order to keep your idea going.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

This would be fine as long as its an IC delusion, and not the player claiming that the character can cast as many spells as they want without being limited to spell slots.

Godmoding gets really annoying and really divisive really fast.

 

[Maxperson]

This would be fine as long as its an IC delusion, and not the player claiming that the character can cast as many spells as they want without being limited to spell slots.

Godmoding gets really annoying and really divisive really fast.

Right. Once your narration involves you succeeding at a save that the caster knows you failed, and you narrate a lie instead of the truth when the mechanics don't allow you to lie, you've crossed the line. Your character concept doesn't allow you to supersede mechanics.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

Has the sorcerer player actually made this claim explicitly with respect to his cards, or are you just putting these words in his mouth? For my part, I certainly don't make this claim with my bard. There is nothing about substituting one spellcasting implement for another that implies the character should be able to cast more spells. I feel like you're forcing this point in order to make your parallel.

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.

If a hypothetical player made this claim, it would strain suspension of disbelief, because the obvious follow-up question to him not actually doing it is "Why not?" I'm not fine with narration that introduces plot holes or risk thereof. If the player's character concept calls for always-available magical power, he should go for a class the mechanics of which let him do that. If the player's character concept calls for him to know stuff, he should go for an ability score array the mechanics of which let him do that. Then he won't have to contrive narrative reasons why he can't do something. He'll be able to choose whether to do it or not, reacting to the situation in whatever way makes sense for the character.

The whole point of having mechanics is to let your character do the stuff that his concept says he should. If you opt into a complete conceptual-mechanical mismatch, that's like trying to eat soup with a fork when there's a spoon right there. Yeah, you may be able to kludge up some awkward approach, but it's still going to be a lot messier than the alternative, and don't expect us to be impressed by it.

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?

Yeah, pretty much. If I ask you to offer answers to these questions, no doubt you'll have some ad hoc reasons why it doesn't work. But I prefer events in a story to unfold organically and according to a consistent internal logic, rather than things happening to serve some external need.

 

[TwoSix]

The whole point of having mechanics is to let your character do the stuff that his concept says he should. If you opt into a complete conceptual-mechanical mismatch, that's like trying to eat soup with a fork when there's a spoon right there. Yeah, you may be able to kludge up some awkward approach, but it's still going to be a lot messier than the alternative, and don't expect us to be impressed by it.

Oh man, I'm an idiot. I didn't realize this was an author stance versus director stance discussion. It's the same concept that underlay the argument about 4e martial daily and encounter powers. It's much harder to justify Int 5 geniuses with debilitating circumstances if your focus is on "inhabiting" the character rather than generating dramatic play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh man, I'm an idiot. I didn't realize this was an author stance versus director stance discussion. It's the same concept that underlay the argument about 4e martial daily and encounter powers. It's much harder to justify Int 5 geniuses with debilitating circumstances if your focus is on "inhabiting" the character rather than generating dramatic play.

For years (decades...) I've been interested in the root causes of political difference. That is, what are basic underlying beliefs that lead to differences in opinion on social/economic issues. For example, do some people inherently believe that wealth is zero-sum, and does that lead to certain political views. A hypothetical "perfect" solution would leave you with a minimal set of questions from which if you asked any one person for answers you could then predict with 100% accuracy their opinions on issues. Would be much messier than that in practice, of course, but that's the idea.

I think there's something similar going on here. I am genuinely 100% perplexed by the opposition of Max, Danny, and Cosmic. Not aesthetic opposition, but their insistence on meanings that to me are either open to interpretation or have the opposite meaning.

So maybe your observation above is one of those core differences, or at least a clue on the trail to the true core differentiating beliefs. It seems like it would relate to other differences in opinions I've seen, e.g. regarding character knowledge, metagaming, and the like.

 

[TwoSix]

For years (decades...) I've been interested in the root causes of political difference. That is, what are basic underlying beliefs that lead to differences in opinion on social/economic issues. For example, do some people inherently believe that wealth is zero-sum, and does that lead to certain political views. A hypothetical "perfect" solution would leave you with a minimal set of questions from which if you asked any one person for answers you could then predict with 100% accuracy their opinions on issues. Would be much messier than that in practice, of course, but that's the idea.

<Nod> Jonathan Haidt had the last book I read on the topic (The Righteous Mind), but I agree that it's a fascinating topic. So much discussion on these forums descends into sniping about semantic distinctions and arguments about the method of arguing. (Seriously, I think the most common words on this forum are "strawman" and "the".)

I think there's something similar going on here. I am genuinely 100% perplexed by the opposition of Max, Danny, and Cosmic. Not aesthetic opposition, but their insistence on meanings that to me are either open to interpretation or have the opposite meaning.

So maybe your observation above is one of those core differences, or at least a clue on the trail to the true core differentiating beliefs. It seems like it would relate to other differences in opinions I've seen, e.g. regarding character knowledge, metagaming, and the like.

I think it may be. If I learned anything from the interminable 4e edition wars, it's that many gamers have a strong aversion to using your character, rather than trying to be IN your character.

 

[Maxperson]

<Nod> Jonathan Haidt had the last book I read on the topic (The Righteous Mind), but I agree that it's a fascinating topic. So much discussion on these forums descends into sniping about semantic distinctions and arguments about the method of arguing. (Seriously, I think the most common words on this forum are "strawman" and "the".)


I think it may be. If I learned anything from the interminable 4e edition wars, it's that many gamers have a strong aversion to using your character, rather than trying to be IN your character.

To those on our side, words and rules mean something. You're just going ignore one or both, it's not going to work for us. Intelligence has meaning in D&D that is defined by the game itself. [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] is just tossing away pretty much all meaning except for the -3. That's fine as a house rule, but the game is not intended or built to be played that way.

 

[TwoSix]

That's fine as a house rule,

That's all you had to admit, that it works fine.