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

[iserith]

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?

It would be more accurate to say such a statement allows for the DM to actually adjudicate what the player described which, as with any other action, may result in automatic success, automatic failure, or an ability check. A player interested in success shouldn't want to roll - automatic success is better than leaving it to a d20.

 

[Cadence]

It would be more accurate to say such a statement allows for the DM to actually adjudicate what the player described which, as with any other action, may result in automatic success, automatic failure, or an ability check. A player interested in success shouldn't want to roll - automatic success is better than leaving it to a d20.

Thank you! And yes, adjudicate would have been a better word choice on my part. Just wanted to be sure I had the main idea down.

 

[Guest 6801328]

D&D 5E - Geniuses with 5 Int

Obviously inspired by that other thread, the goal of this thread is to describe characters who are geniuses, but for whatever reason they often fail at tasks that, in game terms, require a dice roll with an Int modifier. How might you roleplay it? My offerings: Milton von Schlumberg the...

www.enworld.org

I do wonder if, in the intervening years, anybody's stance has shifted from that debate.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The character will fail a bit more than someone with higher Intelligence, but again, that's only if I have to make a check at all.

Part of the problem is that people think of 5 as abysmally low...a drooling moron, if we're talking about Int...but the reality is that it's just a 15% penalty to dice rolls. (When there are even dice rolls, as you keep pointing out.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do wonder if, in the intervening years, anybody's stance has shifted from that debate.

I reread mine, and aside from being overconfident in my belief I had wide experience in playstyles, I'm still in the same place with regard to tge topic: it's fine, but a bit farcical and reliant on some particular approaches to mechanics. I think the most refinement between then and now is looking at more as a preference in genre tropes.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It would be more accurate to say such a statement allows for the DM to actually adjudicate what the player described which, as with any other action, may result in automatic success, automatic failure, or an ability check. A player interested in success shouldn't want to roll - automatic success is better than leaving it to a d20.

I see that this is another strict play loop discussion. This answer tells me we are defining "players ask me do I know X" from different non compatible gameplay styles.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ok, let’s get semantic about it, then.

I didn’t say he makes deductions, I said he makes conclusions. The example I gave about the thief and the dog comes from The Adventure of Silver Blaze. In that story, Holmes concludes that Silver Blaze (a horse) was stolen and a trainer was murdered.

Lestrade, the cop, uses deductive reasoning and arrives at a suspect. He tells Holmes his theory of the case. Holmes, however, uses abduction in order to prove that the cops’ suspect is innocent. The actual culprit was the deceased trainer who had stolen and injured the horse to influence the outcome of (and win a bet on) the next big race. The guard dog did nothing while the theft took place.

in the end, Holmes compliments Lestrade’s deductions (even says he’s a good cop), but points out that he lacks imagination and intuition. Logical deductions pointed to the wrong conclusion - Holmes solved it by imagining what might have happened that would also create the same evidence and clues.

The story goes out of its way to make the point that the Intelligence (Investigation) check didn’t work while intuition did. Not in D&D terms, but yeah.

Do you need animal handling proficiency to know 'Dogs bark at strangers' though?

Drawing deductions based on observed clues is Intelligence (Investigation).

Like; its what you would use to solve the cliched 'locked room with water on the floor and victim hanging from the rafters' riddle.

 

[Dioltach]

Anyway, back to the original topic...

CHA 3: Arnold J. Rimmer
CHA 18: Ace Rimmer (What a guy!)

 

[Bawylie]

Do you need animal handling proficiency to know 'Dogs bark at strangers' though?

Drawing deductions based on observed clues is Intelligence (Investigation).

Like; its what you would use to solve the cliched 'locked room with water on the floor and victim hanging from the rafters' riddle.

The dog didn’t bark in the story, though. It did nothing. So there wasn’t an observed clue of any kind. There was a lack of one.

Intuition isn’t deduction. That Holmes comes out and tells Lestrade that strict deduction was limiting his potential as a cop points to an incongruity in your position on this.

 

[Flamestrike]

The dog didn’t bark in the story, though. It did nothing. So there wasn’t an observed clue of any kind. There was a lack of one.

Intuition isn’t deduction. That Holmes comes out and tells Lestrade that strict deduction was limiting his potential as a cop points to an incongruity in your position on this.

Not relevant.

Intelligence investigation is the skill here.

Holmes has poor Wisdom. His intelligence investigation is solid.