D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[pemerton]

That's wrong. First off, a saving throw is forced on the target. Knowledge checks are not.

Why not, though? If a NPC charms my PC and forces me to solve a crossword, why is a knowledge/INT check not forced?

the player is just deciding what his character absolutely does not know. Similarly, you can have a PC intentionally fail a save. What the player could not do is decide absolutely what the PC does know. Like saves, all he can do is roll to see if he succeeds at the knowledge check. I treat both situations the same.

But it is the PC who chooses to fail the save - in the fiction, s/he does not attempt to avoid the magic.

But knowing something, or recalling some fact, isn't voluntary in the same way. The players choice not to make a knowledge check doesn't correlate to any similar choice being made by the PC in the fiction. It's purely metagame.

 

[BoldItalic]

That really is a strange strange requirement for a genius imo.

Under this definition, if I invent and build a time machine in my basement and use it to avert an impending apocalypse but nobody finds out, I am not a genius

Seems fair. There was no apocalypse and you didn't really do anything smart.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not, though? If a NPC charms my PC and forces me to solve a crossword, why is a knowledge/INT check not forced?

At least three reasons.

First, charm can force nothing. All it does is cause you to treat the NPC as a friendly acquaintance. That's not even as strong as a friend, let alone a best friend, and not even my best friend can force me to know something I don't know. Would I try to help with the crossword puzzle for a friend? Sure, but that's as far as it goes.

Second, why would it be forced? Even if you dominate someone, all you can do is force them to help. You can't force them to make a check. You can command him to solve the puzzle, which he will do to the best of his ability, but if that best involves something he doesn't know, he doesn't know it.

Third, A knowledge check isn't something a PC can initiate. The player has to ask if the PC knows something and then the DM answers yes, no or say a knowledge check is necessary to know that information. If the DM says a check is necessary to know the info, player can opt not to take it and just say that his PC doesn't know.

But it is the PC who chooses to fail the save - in the fiction, s/he does not attempt to avoid the magic.

But knowing something, or recalling some fact, isn't voluntary in the same way. The players choice not to make a knowledge check doesn't correlate to any similar choice being made by the PC in the fiction. It's purely metagame.

No it's not purely metagame. If I make a PC from a desert land and I know that he doesn't have any knowledge of oceans or seas, he's not going to have that information even if dominated to solve a ocean based crossword puzzle. I will just let the DM know my reasoning and that's that. No roll will be made. No metagaming involved.

If a PC is going to tell me that his PC absolutely doesn't know something, I'm going to expect him to have an in game reason for the lack of knowledge and not to be saying that just because the player doesn't want the bad guy to know.

 

[pemerton]

Even if you dominate someone, all you can do is force them to help. You can't force them to make a check.

Where is that rule found?

A knowledge check isn't something a PC can initiate. The player has to ask if the PC knows something and then the DM answers yes, no or say a knowledge check is necessary to know that information. If the DM says a check is necessary to know the info, player can opt not to take it and just say that his PC doesn't know.

First, where is this rule that the player can refuse to check stated?

Secondly, in so far as you are agreeing that knowledge checks happen at the table, and not in the fiction, you are agreeing with me that they happen at the metagame level, not at the ingame/in-fiction level.

That is how I think of saving throws and attack rolls also.

If a PC is going to tell me that his PC absolutely doesn't know something, I'm going to expect him to have an in game reason for the lack of knowledge and not to be saying that just because the player doesn't want the bad guy to know.

Should the first occurrence of "PC" read "player"?

In any event, this is the issue for the player in my 4e game. There is no particular ingame reason available, unless you count as a good reason "I just never happen to have learned that, despite having learned many other, similarly obscure bits of information."

And if you accept that sort of ad hoc narration around the resolution jof knowledge checks - well, in the Eloelle scenario with ZoT the same sort of ad hoc narration is being introduced around the significance of the saving throw and the patron's intervention.

 

[Yardiff]

Gygax's DMG, p 15:

The dexterity rating includes the following physical characteristics: hand-eye coordination, agility, reflex speed, precision, balance, and actual speed of movement in running. It would not be unreasonable to claim that a person with a low dexterity might well be quite agile, but have low reflex speed, poor precision, bad balance, and be slow of foot (but slippery in the grasp).​

How do we reconcile this character's slipperiness in the grasp with his/her tendency to lose grappling contests? By adopting a non-default narration of what is going on when, despite being slippery, s/he is repeatedly grappled by those of even ordinary DEX.

The same approach to narration is used by [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] in the case of the brawny but low-STR hobgoblin.

The Eloelle scenario pushes this approach further again, but the basic spirit of it, and the relationship between mechanics and narration that are involved, is the same.

Claiming to be/have something like genius/agility and then being unable to prove such is just the character being delusional, which is fine if that what you want.

Problem with using something like 'injury' to explain why the character doesn't really have low ability score for RP but for mechanics they still have the -X modifier doesn't work for me because 'magical healing' is part of the game and 'injury' can be healed with any healing spell.

But wait, now its not just an 'injury' its a 'curse' as well, so 'normal' magic cant heal it. Now if 'normal' magic cant heal it then you can benefit from magical items unless their of Legendary status.

Having a 'crutch' to explain why the character, who is supposedly a genius, but the 'crutch' keeps them using their full genius capability also has the problem of not being able to use magic items or ASI to improve the characters int because the 'crutch' concept would keep to stat at the character concept stated stat, in this case a 5 int.


But all that aside this whole process is all about not wanting to RP a low ability score as a low ability score. Having a 5 ability score means you probably agreed to roll for stats, but now that you a 5 you don't want to have to RP that stat, whichever one you decided to put it in. But if your table agrees with/buys into the fiction of how you want to play your character that's fine, don't expect everyone to agree something like a genius with a 5 int, and the reason they have a 5 in is because they aren't good at taking test.

 

[Maxperson]

Where is that rule found?

Page 235. Dominate doesn't list forcing knowledge checks as one of its abilities.

First, where is this rule that the player can refuse to check stated?

The DM narrates the results of actions. The player gets to state what he wants the PC to do. Unless he states that he wants to engage the check, there is no action for the DM to narrate.

Secondly, in so far as you are agreeing that knowledge checks happen at the table, and not in the fiction, you are agreeing with me that they happen at the metagame level, not at the ingame/in-fiction level.

That is how I think of saving throws and attack rolls also.

The rolls happen at the player level. So it would be Knowledge check rolls, saving throw rolls, and attack rolls. The knowledge check (PC remembering the info or not), the saving throw (saving or not) and the attack ("hitting" or not) all happen at the in-game level.

Should the first occurrence of "PC" read "player"?

That would be good guess

In any event, this is the issue for the player in my 4e game. There is no particular ingame reason available, unless you count as a good reason "I just never happen to have learned that, despite having learned many other, similarly obscure bits of information."

Since he's not omniscient, that's a very good reason. For all that he knows, he knows less than 1% of all that there is to know in the wide, wide multiverse.

 

[pemerton]

Claiming to be/have something like genius/agility and then being unable to prove such is just the character being delusional, which is fine if that what you want.

A question of clarification: are you saying that the rules for stats have changed since Gygax gave his example, or are you saying that he was wrong to present that example?

Problem with using something like 'injury' to explain why the character doesn't really have low ability score for RP but for mechanics they still have the -X modifier doesn't work for me because 'magical healing' is part of the game and 'injury' can be healed with any healing spell.

<snip>

Having a 'crutch' to explain why the character, who is supposedly a genius, but the 'crutch' keeps them using their full genius capability also has the problem of not being able to use magic items or ASI to improve the characters int because the 'crutch' concept would keep to stat at the character concept stated stat, in this case a 5 int.

Both [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] and I have posted upthread about how one could handle Eloelle acquiring a Headband of Intellect or Gem of Insight, or reading a Tome of Clear Thought. A range of narrations are possible - the most obvious is that as her mind clears, she learns to shake off (at least to some extent) the urgings of her patron.

As for healing - healing a withered arm requires a regenerate spell. This is 7th level. It's very easy to avoid having it come into play. (This is a variant of the possibility that a cleric or warlock PC's backstory might be perturbed because the character's god or patron is killed. Yes, it's possible but it's not that likely, and if it happens a range of workarounds is feasible.)

 

[Yardiff]

In Twosix's character case it wasn't clear if the characters carrying capacity was still at the 7 str or at the 'brawny' str. A withered arm wouldn't (at least in my opinion) effect the carrying capacity all that much.

 

[pemerton]

Page 235. Dominate doesn't list forcing knowledge checks as one of its abilities.

<snip>

The player gets to state what he wants the PC to do. Unless he states that he wants to engage the check, there is no action for the DM to narrate.

I'm confused. Upthread you said "A knowledge check isn't something a PC can initiate." But now you're saying that it is something a PC can initiate, and hence that the player of that PC has control over. Which is it?

As for a dominate spell, here is the description in the SRD (p 137):

While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.” If the creature completes the order and doesn’t receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn’t do anything that you don’t allow it to do.​

This would clearly enable the caster to force the dominated person to answer a question. As a matter of gameplay, how would we work out whether or not the person knows the answer? I would have thought the canonical way is by making a knowledge check.

Another way to look at it is this: the caster instructs the dominated PC to answer a question. The player now has to have his/her PC obey that command. But what does the PC say? If it is certain that the PC knows the answer, the answer has to be given. If it is certain that s/he doesn't know the answer, the PC answers "I don't know." If it is uncertain, a check is made. But who has authority over the question of whether or not it's certain or uncertain? The GM (per SRD p 77).

What makes you think that the player has any say over this?

 

[pemerton]

In Twosix's character case it wasn't clear if the characters carrying capacity was still at the 7 str or at the 'brawny' str. A withered arm wouldn't (at least in my opinion) effect the carrying capacity all that much.

I guess [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] should answer this, but I think the answer is obvious: the encumbrance limit for the character is as per 7 STR.

Is this a restriction that models the ingame causation (ie the PC is limited in this way) or just a metagame rule (ie TwoSix will never declare an action in which the PC picks up a larger amount of gear)? Dunno - I'll leave that one for TwoSix. If the answer is the former, here's one possible narration - the PC cannot carry more than the relevant limit because the pain it causes to the damaged arm is more than a hobgoblin can bear!