D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Ovinomancer]

I don't know 4e, but if it compels the truth, then there is no basis for an "I don't know" instead of a check. The check would have to be made and an answer given if the check succeeds.

I'd have no problem allowing the player to declare they don't know without a check. They'd automatically fail any future checks on that topic, though, because they don't know.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd have no problem allowing the player to declare they don't know without a check. They'd automatically fail any future checks on that topic, though, because they don't know.

Good point. I'd be okay with that as well.

 

[Yardiff]

If the one characters patron decided to abandon them would their int score suddenly become a 20? All these "geniuses" have 'crutches' that can be fixed by magic, will all the example have 20 int's when the 'crutches' are removed?

 

[happyhermit]

If the one characters patron decided to abandon them would their int score suddenly become a 20? All these "geniuses" have 'crutches' that can be fixed by magic, will all the example have 20 int's when the 'crutches' are removed?

Yep, it's pretty obvious that some in this thread aren't arguing in good faith, and frankly the derogatory nature of some of Elfcrusher's comments in particular are rather disheartening to see on a forum of this nature.

Some seem dogmatically determined to argue that things are RAW, even when they directly oppose the rules documents. I have no idea WHY they are trying to argue that they are RAW.


If the character with a low strength score because of an injury was charmed and compelled to use his bulk in a way that didn't involve that arm the stats no longer match. If the character was in a situation where they could spare someone's life by using their bulk in a way that did not involve the arm then once again the stats are at odds with the character. I won't even bother with restorative magic.

To top it off if this "genius" who is pretending to be stupid was asked if they THOUGHT they knew the answer then some are arguing that they would simply make ZoT or insight, etc unable to determine that she was lying. Or some other convoluted reason that involves her being able to say "No, I don't THINK I know the answer" and having that be true, except 2 seconds later when they say she THINKS she knows the answer.

The thing is, nobody seems to have even the slightest problem with these concepts, besides pointing out the obvious mechanical issues. Somehow that isn't good enough though, it has to be RAW for some unknown reason.

 

[pemerton]

give the incorrect answer that she knows.

Why do you keep saying this? In the fiction, Eloelle is a genius. She knows the truth. But at the table, because there is "5" written in the INT box on the character sheet, the GM is not telling Eloelle's player anything useful. And in the fiction, the reason that Eloelle spouts this ignorance and nonsense is not because she believes it, but because she is directed by her patron to do so.

if it would give the PCs access to knowledge greater than her 5 int, then it isn't the Zone of Truth breaking the game, it's the character concept itself.

My view is that if a single corner-case spell causes problems or complexities in an otherwise interesting and workable PC concept, it is the spell rather than the character concept that should yield.

I don't know 4e, but if it compels the truth, then there is no basis for an "I don't know" instead of a check. The check would have to be made and an answer given if the check succeeds.

<snip>

How does that narration collide in your game? All it does is give a reason for his success with knowledge skills. A PC with a +40 and no such narration would have identical knowledge. Being forced to tell the truth is working as intended in 4e, with or without that narration.

I feel that you are not really engaging with the question that I have raised.

I'll try again.

The character in my 4e game has very little chance of failing knowledge checks. Hence, as a practical matter, the player of that character can acquire pretty much whatever information he wants. In the fiction, this is the PC's recollection of some experience from one of a thousand past lives.

However, the player (and hence PC) doesn't actually know everything, because only a finite number of knowledge checks will be declared and resolved in a given session.

In other words, there is almost nothing the character can't know, but there is plenty that the character doesn't know.

Under a compulsion spell (ZoT or anything similar), is the player obliged to make a knowledge check to hand over information (and hence, in practice, be an unlimited encyclopedia for the enemy magic user) or is he allowed to declare "I don't know"?

If you take the mechanics as a literal model of the fiction, the answer would seem to be the first. I don't take the mechanics to be that, though - the mechanics are a device for working out what happens at the table when the player wants to resolve a knowledge check; they are not an exhaustive model of what, in the fiction, the character knows.

As I said, it has some features similar to Eloelle - the interaction between the narrative and the default approach to the mechanics (in this case, the knowledge skill mechanics) can produce some quirky outcomes, but there are other ways to make sense of what is going on which help keep things on an even keel, and don't drive a big wedge between what information the player has gameplay access to, and what information he can be forced to yield up under magical interrogation.

 

[pemerton]

I'd have no problem allowing the player to declare they don't know without a check. They'd automatically fail any future checks on that topic, though, because they don't know.

I had assumed that the second sentence would go without saying - unless something happens in the fiction to change the contents of the PC's mind.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If the one characters patron decided to abandon them would their int score suddenly become a 20? All these "geniuses" have 'crutches' that can be fixed by magic, will all the example have 20 int's when the 'crutches' are removed?

I have no idea, although it's an interesting thing to hypothesize.

Unlikely to ever need to be answered, though, because how exactly would the character's patron "decide to abandon" him/her? Setting aside the problem that this would break the Warlock class more generally, whose decision would this be? The DM's? Why would the DM do that? Just to undermine the player's narrative?

To pre-empt the answer: "Because that's how the DM determines this story unfolds" I call b.s. Massive piles of stinkin' b.s. To paraphrase something I just saw in another thread: Rule #1 is that given the choice between two viable story options, choose the one that doesn't undermine another player. Rule #2 is that there are always two options. So if the DM rules that, due to story, the Warlock has lost her connection to her Patron it means that the DM is intentionally trying to kill the player's chosen narrative, in which case there are much bigger issues at the table.

And why would the Player choose this change to the narrative without a good backup plan? Maybe the player just decides the RP isn't fun anymore. So the next time she takes a critical hit she describes a traumatic brain injury AND coincidentally the Patron abandons her. I don't know.

That said, just the fact that you asked this question suggests to me that your cart is my horse and vice versa. The question I would ask is: "What events would lead the player to alter the story and have her Patron abandon her?" An example might be a Headband of Intellect. Suddenly the player actually starts making all those Int checks, and is free to alter the narrative. If the Headband is subsequently lost, it's time to make amends with the Patron. Etc.

 

[pemerton]

If the one characters patron decided to abandon them would their int score suddenly become a 20? All these "geniuses" have 'crutches' that can be fixed by magic, will all the example have 20 int's when the 'crutches' are removed?

I've already discussed this upthread, with reference to Eloelle reading a Tome of Clear Thought or acquiring a Gem of Insight.

But obviously character can't just arbitrarily shed the "crutch" - that would be cheating on the part of the player.

If the character with a low strength score because of an injury was charmed and compelled to use his bulk in a way that didn't involve that arm the stats no longer match. If the character was in a situation where they could spare someone's life by using their bulk in a way that did not involve the arm then once again the stats are at odds with the character.

That example is no different from Gygax's that I quoted upthread, from his DMG - the low DEX character who is nevertheless agile and slippery in the grasp. What happens if that character is grappled? S/he still has the penalties for a low DEX score, and the burden falls on the player (in the first instance) and the table generally to establish some coherent narration.

Likewise with the low-STR character - in situations where bulk rather than dominant arm strength seems to be relevant, the burden is on the player and the rest of the table to come up with a coherent narration.
[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] has already explained how he does this. And given that he is actually doing it, I think it rebuts the suggestion that it can't be done!

 

[happyhermit]

I don't want to engage in argument for the sake of argument, I will address this though;

I think it rebuts the suggestion that it can't be done!

Is this actually serious? I see everybody agreeing that if the players and GM agree to the concept then it CAN be done, it just isn't RAW. Why do you feel the need to argue that it is RAW?

 

[Maxperson]

Why do you keep saying this? In the fiction, Eloelle is a genius. She knows the truth. But at the table, because there is "5" written in the INT box on the character sheet, the GM is not telling Eloelle's player anything useful. And in the fiction, the reason that Eloelle spouts this ignorance and nonsense is not because she believes it, but because she is directed by her patron to do so.

Genius isn't even remotely omniscient. They don't know everything by virtue of being a genius. Eloelle is very, VERY capable of being wrong.

My view is that if a single corner-case spell causes problems or complexities in an otherwise interesting and workable PC concept, it is the spell rather than the character concept that should yield.

A perfectly valid view given your playstyle. It's just a house rule, though. You are changing the mechanics of a spell to fit a concept.

The character in my 4e game has very little chance of failing knowledge checks. Hence, as a practical matter, the player of that character can acquire pretty much whatever information he wants. In the fiction, this is the PC's recollection of some experience from one of a thousand past lives.

However, the player (and hence PC) doesn't actually know everything, because only a finite number of knowledge checks will be declared and resolved in a given session.

In other words, there is almost nothing the character can't know, but there is plenty that the character doesn't know.

Under a compulsion spell (ZoT or anything similar), is the player obliged to make a knowledge check to hand over information (and hence, in practice, be an unlimited encyclopedia for the enemy magic user) or is he allowed to declare "I don't know"?

As I said in an earlier post, I would not require the check. The PC could just say I don't know, assuming no prior in game knowledge of course. Then I would expect that PC to auto fail any future checks concerning that topic, unless the player roleplayed with me looking up and finding out the information.

As I said, it has some features similar to Eloelle - the interaction between the narrative and the default approach to the mechanics (in this case, the knowledge skill mechanics) can produce some quirky outcomes, but there are other ways to make sense of what is going on which help keep things on an even keel, and don't drive a big wedge between what information the player has gameplay access to, and what information he can be forced to yield up under magical interrogation.

A genius doesn't know everything.