D&D 5E Weird Interpretations for High/Low Ability Scores

[Cadence]

As it relates to the thread, Int-5 Sherlock Holmes could therefore be good at finding the hidden clues, but not as good at succeeding at ability checks related to deducing what those clues mean. But a player needn't ever make an ability check to do that if they can put together the clues and make deductions on their own since a player establishes what a character thinks anyway. The character might be wrong, of course, if the player reached an erroneous conclusion, and might not be able to confirm it prior to acting on it due to a subpar Intelligence. Notably, the high-Int character has this same problem. It's just more likely they will succeed on average without needing to spend additional resources.

Where Int-5 Sherlock Holmes might struggle is in figuring out how traps and secret doors work before disarming or opening them. But as far as recalling lore or making deductions in a way that might call for an ability check? That's something the player doesn't need to engage with if they don't want to. All they have to do is not declare actions that entail making deductions or recalling lore.

What are the common uses, if any, of INT in your game besides for some spell casters and for figuring out traps/secret doors?

 

[iserith]

What are the common uses, if any, of INT in your game besides for some spell casters and for figuring out traps/secret doors?

Making deductions and recalling lore. What you don't see in my games is people asking what their characters know. That doesn't fit in D&D 5e in my view.

 

[Cadence]

Making deductions and recalling lore. What you don't see in my games is people asking what their characters know. That doesn't fit in D&D 5e in my view.

Is the phrasing what distinguishes recalling lore and asking what a character knows? (My bard attempts to recall what the sage of sunsets told him about the distinction between recalling lore and requesting verification of what is known).

And, of course, everyone has their own ideas of what they're certain is bad wrong (or at least vastly sub-optimal or outside the spirit) fun.

 

[iserith]

Is the phrasing what distinguishes recalling lore and asking what a character knows? (My bard attempts to recall what the sage of sunsets told him about the distinction between recalling lore and requesting verification of what is known).

And, of course, everyone has their own ideas of what they're certain is bad wrong (or at least vastly sub-optimal or outside the spirit) fun.

The issue is asking what your character knows isn't an action that the DM can adjudicate. The DM can adjudicate an attempt to recall lore based upon some experience with the matter the player is free to assert. But a player needn't do that to determine what their character thinks about something.

 

[Cadence]

The issue is asking what your character knows isn't an action that the DM can adjudicate. The DM can adjudicate an attempt to recall lore based upon some experience with the matter the player is free to assert. But a player needn't do that to determine what their character thinks about something.

Quibbling over the difference between "knowledge" and "recallable lore based on experience" seems not worth the bother to me. Your mileage does indeed seem to vary.

 

[iserith]

Quibbling over the difference between "knowledge" and "recallable lore based on experience" seems not worth the bother to me.

It's not a trivial distinction as it is related to who gets to say what in the game which is fundamental to how the game works. But I believe we already had a long thread on this not so long ago. No need to do it again here.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Making deductions and recalling lore. What you don't see in my games is people asking what their characters know. That doesn't fit in D&D 5e in my view.

I see later you mentioned this was covered in another thread, however I didn't follow that one to know the conversation.

The most common time I see players ask "Does my character know X" is usually for a metagame purpose. Not in a bad way, but in a way that seeks permission to act on player knowledge in a certain situation.

For example...if you ran a campaign in which all the player characters were members of a small fishing village who weren't much aware of the world at large and our characters ran across a troll. I highly doubt any sort of preestablished backstory mentioned interaction with trolls, however that doesn't preclude the idea that my character would know what a troll was and that you might want to burn it. As a player, I don't want my metagaming knowledge to seep into my character so usually I can self-censor, however there might be some times where things could go either way and "Does my character know X" seeks to get a fair GM ruling on the issue.

Another reasonable example would be if I were playing a druid and I wanted to assume an animal form for an animal I hadn't firmly established that I had encountered or not in my past. Have all elven druids from the forestlands seen a Giant Constrictor Snake or a Polar Bear? Is it my call as a player what my druid has seen? Is it your call as the GM as to what you allow?

 

[Cadence]

It's not a trivial distinction as it is related to who gets to say what in the game which is fundamental to how the game works. But I believe we already had a long thread on this not so long ago. No need to do it again here.

I see later you mentioned this was covered in another thread, however I didn't follow that one to know the conversation.

I believe it was this one: 5E - player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

 

[iserith]

I see later you mentioned this was covered in another thread, however I didn't follow that one to know the conversation.

The most common time I see players ask "Does my character know X" is usually for a metagame purpose. Not in a bad way, but in a way that seeks permission to act on player knowledge in a certain situation.

The player is not required to get the permission of the DM to act. That is a table rule that some groups use.

 

[Cadence]

The player is not required to get the permission of the DM to act. That is a table rule that some groups use.

I think I'm good with understanding much of the last thread. The thing I'm not remembering for sure is what happens when the player doesn't know but thinks the character very well might. Am I correct that at your table: "What would George my bard know about Sea Trolls?" gets him nowhere, but "George trolls his memory for details on the weaknesses of sea trolls from his class on rare monsters of the north at the academy" would allow for an int based knowledge roll in response to that mental action declaration?