D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TwoSix]

Then he has a circumstance penalty when using that arm only. He can still use his full massive strength to knock down doors, bullrush opponents, shield bash them with his off hand, and so on. He would not have a low strength from that example.

He doesn't do those things. He's a sorcerer.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Wasn't this the whole point of BI's character concept? That he's a low Int, High Wis (assumedly high Cha) character who's running a con to make people think he's a genius? It's a shift from the initial set-up, but still falls under the broader topic of the post.

Apologies- that's a editing error on my part, because that is actually from his post. I'll go back and correct it. Thanks!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He doesn't do those things. He's a sorcerer.

Doesn't change the validity of the answer, though. What has been described is a circumstance penalty, not a low attribute.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, here's my response to the Eloelle/Bruce lie-detection thing:

I'll preface the preface by saying that when I'm DMing "Insight" is not a lie-detection skill. (Otherwise why even have Zone of Truth as a spell?) On a successful roll I tell the player what hints they pick up on, but I don't say, "Yeah, you think she's telling the truth. But that's neither here nor there.

Assuming that Insight *is* a lie-detection ability, I further don't ever use "social PvP" between players in my games. Not saying those who do so are playing wrong, but that's just contrary to what I think the spirit of the game should be. Players are supposed to be cooperating in a fiction, and if they feel the need to Deceive or Persuade (or detect lies) between characters, then something is going wrong at the table. Yes, in fiction there are often conflicts between heroes, but those should be resolved narratively in my opinion. If a player loses control of his character (let's say he's playing Boromir and he rolls badly to resist the lure of the Ring) then the DM should take over his character until it passes.

Again, not The One True way, but it is the way I play and so that's the context within which I think about things like...well, Eloelle.

Ok, so now let's say we're in a game where Insight *is* lie detection, and "social PvP" is ok. Eloelle has just publicly failed her Int check, and declares, "Ha! My superior intellect has solved the riddle, but...what's this...my patron whispers in my ear and tells me it is vital to keep the secret; it is all part of his plan. Blast! I do hate having to pretend to be as feeble-minded as my foolish companions, but so be it. Eloelle shrugs and says, 'No, idea.'"

What does Bruce’s player do next?

First, let's assume he acknowledges the distinction between in-character narration and in-character talking, and agrees that his character did not "hear" her little monologue. Perhaps he says, "You know, Eloelle is always using these big fancy words, and mentioning how she is both an Invoker AND a Summoner (really!), and how she studied in Waterdeep and Silverymoon and Khitai and has been to Elminster's house...I think she's hiding something. Probably her 'patron'...who none of us have ever actually met, now that I think about it...is telling her what to do again. I'm going to roll Insight and see if she's lying.

So he rolls and gets a natural 20. Eloelle rolls Deception and gets a 1. Oops. So now Bruce knows that she's lying, right? You can't even really adjudicate it with "Seems like she's not telling you the whole story" or "She won't make eye contact with you" because the player already knows the truth, so it’s kind of hard to be evasive with the answer. At this point it’s binary: Bruce either knows or doesn’t know.

I would suggest that by making the die roll Bruce’s player is really just looking for “permission from the dice” to give his character that information. Sort of like asking the DM, “Do I know about trolls and fire?” And the DM says, “Make a Nature check.” “Sweet...17. I get some torches ready.”

At this point I would call this adversarial playing. It’s plausible that Bruce wouldn’t suspect anything, and if Bruce’s player were supporting Eloelle’s player in roleplaying her character concept, he could easily choose to not be suspicious at all. He shouldn’t (I should hope) have any annoyance that “Eloelle can get us out of this mess but she’s refusing to share the secret” because, mechanically, she doesn’t know the secret. She failed the roll. She told the story around the table about her patron etc. to entertain the table, not to change the mechanics.

But at the same time, if Eloelle’s player is allowed to roleplay in a way that bothers Bruce’s player, I suppose he has every ‘right’ to reciprocate by roleplaying in a way that bothers her, in the sense that when somebody cuts you off on the highway you’re justified in tailgating them with your high beams on. So he uses Insight and knows Eloelle is lying.

If that’s what this has come to, if Bruce’s player really won’t cooperate with me on playing this character, and the DM won't back me up, then I'd go all Hamlet on them. if I were playing Eloelle I would simply say, “Nope, I’m not lying. I failed the roll and I don’t know the answer. Eloelle makes up stories because she feels really insecure about her low Intelligence, and I was acting that out so you could be entertained by the crazy stories that she tells herself. Honestly, she’s delusional. It’s sad.”

And so on, until Bruce’s player dropped it.

And then I’d give my best maniacal cackle and rub my hands together with glee. And then as we moved on to the next scene I’d whisper, just loudly enough for the rest of the table to hear, “Fools…”

 

[TheCosmicKid]

He doesn't do those things. He's a sorcerer.

So your character concept requires him never, ever to do certain pretty basic adventuring things which he might plausibly want to do, especially if, within the fiction, he is very very strong?

 

[TwoSix]

Doesn't change the validity of the answer, though. What has been described is a circumstance penalty, not a low attribute.

I'm not actually sure why we're arguing. We asserted like 200 posts ago that you think stats are definitional, and I don't. We don't have anything else to discuss. So if I restarted anything, my apologies.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Simple statements of fact. I got degrees (one undergrad, one grad) from 2 of those schools, but have high level familial and social connections with all four. I am not exaggerating when I say I went to school with scions of those with names on campus buildings all over the South (mostly Texas), and as such, I have invites to those kinds of events.

Then maybe you can answer a question for me: when you're at a fancy party in a mansion, and you've got a wine glass in one hand, and a little plate in the other hand...probably with little hors d'oeuvres made from Wheat Thins, which SUCK because they slide around on the plate...and you meet a senator or a millionaire or something...HOW DO YOU SHAKE HANDS?

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night worrying about this, in case I ever get invited to a mansion.

 

[pemerton]

The game doesn't care. If she "knows" the answer, then she must tell that answer to the caster. That is what the mechanics demand. If you avoid giving the answer that she "knows", you are either cheating or house ruling the mechanics away.

<snip>

The mechanics demand the truth that she "knows", so she has to give it. You don't get to change that mechanic by introducing more fluff. At least not without a house rule.

This is a bit weird for two reasons.

First, there are strange category errors. Games aren't the sorts of things that care (or fail to care). And the mechanics demand nothing of any character: mechanics are things that exist and operate in the real world, and demand things of the players.

In this particular case, the mechanics demand that the the player hand over certain information - broadly, the information to which his/her PC has a canonical form of access. A peculiarity of ZoT is that it is a disadvantage to be subject to that spell if your PC has a high INT and/or you are an informed player. Luckily for the player of the 5 INT character, the PC has a low INT and the player is not well informed!

The second weird thing is that you think it is some sort of "touche" event to point out that this is a non-standard application of the ZoT spell ("house rule"). Of course it is (and I don't think [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has denied that). If you're going to do funky things with the INT score, of course information-gathering/disclosure-forcing spells are going to generate some corner cases.

To bring up a comparison: in the Marvel Heroic RP game, the following characters all have a high Durability score: Captain American, Invisible Woman and The Thing. For Cap it is his shield; for Sue Storm her forcefield; for Ben Grimm his skin.

That means that these Durability scores can be circumvented in different ways: for instance, if The Thing is unconscious he is still durable, whereas that is not so for Captain America or Invisible Woman - in mechanical terms, if one of these characters is unconscious than his/her player can't declare an action that draws upon the Durability stat.

The game is not broken because it uses the same stat to represent much the same outcome (in typical circumstances these characters can't easily be hurt) although, in the fiction, the reason for being hard to hurt is quite different. It demands paying attention to the fiction, especially as we move towards edge cases, but that's a virtue in a RPG (isn't it?).
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] is presenting INT, and ZoT, in much the same way. And it has much the same consequences - some more marginal or atypical cases require closer attention to the fiction in order to establish a clear narration.

 

[TwoSix]

So your character concept requires him never, ever to do certain pretty basic adventuring things which he might plausibly want to do, especially if, within the fiction, he is very very strong?

Pretty much. If I'm in the situation where I have to make a Strength check, I narrate successes on the basis that my large frame and overall athleticism allows me to compensate for my injured arm. (It helps to have an overall +8 to Athletics despite the 7 Str.) And when I do fail a save, I usually weave in a description about my arm being in the way or unable to grab something that might have helped.

 

[TwoSix]

If that’s what this has come to, if Bruce’s player really won’t cooperate with me on playing this character, and the DM won't back me up, then I'd go all Hamlet on them. if I were playing Eloelle I would simply say, “Nope, I’m not lying. I failed the roll and I don’t know the answer. Eloelle makes up stories because she feels really insecure about her low Intelligence, and I was acting that out so you could be entertained by the crazy stories that she tells herself. Honestly, she’s delusional. It’s sad.”

And so on, until Bruce’s player dropped it.

And then I’d give my best maniacal cackle and rub my hands together with glee. And then as we moved on to the next scene I’d whisper, just loudly enough for the rest of the table to hear, “Fools…”

Bravo, sir. I tend to judge people on the forum by one simple attribute: Do they seem like someone I would want playing at my table? And you, sir, have passed.

(I do withdraw this recommendation if there's some major BO issue going on, of course.)