D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[iserith]

I don't find knowledge checks especially useful, honestly. I think it takes a lot of effort on the part of the DM to purposefully add in uses for knowledge checks, and unfortunately, they've removed a lot of cool ones. Like knowledge of masonry used to actually be really useful if you wanted to destroy a building, or just avoid being destroyed by a building, and that's just sorta gone. What's left is pretty much three checks that are almost entirely to find monster weaknesses and abilities that I feel you don't really need to know immediately, and one check for world lore (which is sometimes pretty useful still during RP).

Any fictional action that involves recalling lore that is not Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion just falls under a general Intelligence ability check. So if a player says, "I try to recall what I know of the weaknesses of this particular type of masonry..." and the DM thinks the result of that fictional action is uncertain, then an Intelligence check could apply to resolve the outcome.

If you personally aren't finding Intelligence checks useful, then it makes sense that your players are dumping Intelligence. Knowing what a monster can do at the outset of a fight is very much a boon to the players, who can then potentially use what they discover to give themselves an edge. There are many other times an Intelligence check might come up, depending on the situation, when engaging with the exploration and social interaction pillars of the game. It's just up to your players to engage in a fictional action involving mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason and succeed at an Intelligence check the DM calls for (if the outcome of the fictional action is uncertain). Then it's on you as DM to reward success with a tangible benefit e.g. taking the time to deduce the workings of the trap makes it easier to disarm or analyzing the runes for patterns gives the PC a useful clue for solving the puzzle. In short order, I bet you see players investing a bit more in Intelligence.

Though this does make me wonder: In your game, do players ask to make ability checks (or make them without being asked) or do they just state fictional actions and wait for the DM to ask for ability checks?

 

[Mondobone]

In both the games I run and the games I play in, it tends to be a bit of both. Generally whenever someone has a really high score in something they're looking to use it, so they'll always ask if they can make an X check or just say they start performing X to see if it does anything. In cases where their various X's obviously don't apply, though, they'll state their actions and wait for a response, at which point the DM will ask for a check if needed.

If you personally aren't finding Intelligence checks useful, then it makes sense that your players are dumping Intelligence. Knowing what a monster can do at the outset of a fight is very much a boon to the players, who can then potentially use what they discover to give themselves an edge.

I was about to say that it really wasn't useful, but I realized why and caught myself. All the creatures we encounter are very simple. There's no knowledge to be had. The majority is probably humanoid soldiers or bandits, perhaps with a wizard mixed in. And second place goes to animals of some kind, where knowledge checks only come into play if people get worried about poison or diseases. Even a lot of the more fantastic things we run into don't have much to comment on. Animated tables, small golems, the undead. I do recall that we had some elementals not long ago that were honestly pretty straightforward themselves, but that knowledge check did, at least, reveal weaknesses that we could've used.

And then still didn't, because I'm not sure any of us could exploit those elements other than the wizard. Which I guess could be considered thematic that only the wizard with a high int could make use of knowledge checks.

But in short, yeah, I think part of it is worldbuilding and the DM (whether me or someone else) just not putting in much that would require a knowledge check.

Though then you have to ask if it's right to put a bunch of int checks into the game if you know your players are going to dump int...? That's a bit of a circular problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I mean, that's kind of where I'm at, too, except my players do tend to dump intelligence. Moreso now than before, but now that the minimum is 8, that also leaves them at "average" rather than so low as to impose a true handicap. Which makes all this debate of whether or not low-int players can be allowed to have complex plans rather moot. None of my players ever seem to have complex plans, which means that even if we added that restriction in an attempt to make int useful, it's still not a relevant use.

And again, maybe this is just my table(s), but it's certainly very common. Even when I run campaigns with light combat and heavy roleplaying, intelligence tends to be neglected.

Using the INTx10 = IQ comparison (which seems pretty fair despite an earlier poster saying differently), you get the following:

INT 2: Profound retardation
INT 3 : Severe retardation
INT 4-5 : Mild/Moderate retardation
INT 6-7: Borderline
INT 8: Dull normal
INT 9-11: normal (average)
INT 12-13: Bright normal
INT 14-15: Superior
INT 16-17: Genius
INT 18+: Wile E. Coyote

So an 8 intelligence is very workable normal, if a bit dull. The occasional blank look, or complaining that you don't like geometry or TS Eliot is appropriate.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except, objectively, this particular statistic used to be more important for non-int-primary classes.

When? You have to be more specific. For most of D&D's lifespan, INT wasn't all that important to anyone who wasn't a Magic User outside of how you roleplay your character.

That was removed, and now it has nothing.

Please refrain from hyperbole. There are still saving throws and skills (and role playing). That's not "nothing".

And even then, just because it's been that way for 40 years doesn't mean it's good. Can we really call even 3.5 "good"? Fun to play, sure, but it's completely riddled with flaws by most people's standards.

Ah, I see now. You're thinking your personal preferences are objectively true. Common error. For one, lots of people think 3.5 is good (not me, but obviously lots do due to it's continued popularity as a preferred edition). Also, I really doubt "most people" think it's riddled with flaws. No game is flaw free, but riddled? More hyperbole.

I don't think we can ever say that every attribute is going to be equally useful for every class, but as it is there are very few (if any, for some classes) reasons to not use a 15/15/15/8/8/8 array. In fact, I would say that with how stats are arranged now, with power flattened and all the BAB and buffs and whatnot removed, attributes are more important than ever before to attempt to max out. Yet they have also become much harder to come by, potentially taking all five of your also much rarer feats to reach 20 in just one or two. Taking anything but a 14 or 15 in your important statistics (whatever those happen to be for your class) can be pretty crippling, 'cause you're always gonna be starved for modifiers.

Firstly, there are lots of reasons not to use that array, which have already been mentioned a million times. Not everyone likes playing that way, and a whole lot of people don't assign stats to maximize their PCs, but assign stats to best support the theme of character they want to play. Secondly, you're contradicting yourself here. One of the best reasons NOT to use that array is for the reason you immediately followed up with. With BA, every stat is important, so using three dump stats with penalties each hurts more than an edition where you have lots of bonuses.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Insomuch as those are the only mechanical aspects of the game that respond to your stats, yes, but it's facetious to say there's not more to the game than that, unless you are ignoring the "RP" in "RPG".


The former. His 6 Intelligence indicates that he should typically not be good at mental tasks, so his ability to complete a mental task, such as formulating a battle strategy or engineer a home, is in question and thus requires a check.

The outcome of the battle is determined by other game-mechanics, namely: the battle itsself. If you rely on poor tactics, you are likely to lose. The outcome of the building is determined by your attempts to use it. Perhaps it stands...until a stiff wind comes along. Perhaps they miscalculated the maximum occupancy and its weight bearing capacity causing it to collapse and kill those inside.


What the numbers mean is not the same as the numbers having or not having meaning at all. I don't understand why you think saying an Int of 6 "isn't smart" is an arbitrary decision. I don't think I'd enjoy engaging a person with an Int of 6 in a game of Checkers, much less even ask them their opinion on tactical battle planning. There are very real measures by which you can estimate if a person is smart enough to do something, even D&D does this by saying that you have to have an Int of 3 to even be sentient. Clearly they've delineated that at some point, your Int is too low to even think. So suggesting that it would be arbitrary to say a person with an Int of only 3 points over the bare minimum to be sentient may have difficulty with certain mental tasks is just absurd.

So do you also run the opposite way, with high-Int PCs, when the players come up with stupid ideas?

"Make a DC 12 Int Check to discover that your plan wouldn't work on an addled donkey and that the surest way to success is to place the gem in the empty sconce you saw in the hallway."

 

[Ovinomancer]

So do you also run the opposite way, with high-Int PCs, when the players come up with stupid ideas?

"Make a DC 12 Int Check to discover that your plan wouldn't work on an addled donkey and that the surest way to success is to place the gem in the empty sconce you saw in the hallway."

Usually I'd just tell them. Typically, I give a chance to evade a bad thing, but don't gatekeep good things behind chance. So, if you're a moron, you have a chance that your otherwise brilliant plan gets anticipated (because, natch, you're just a moron), but if you're a SUUUUPERGENIUS(tm), then you get free information. I won't tell you that you can't do something, but I might put it behind a reasonable ability check.

Really, the argument here seems to be that modeling physical abilities should, somehow, be different than modeling mental abilities in game. I agree, to a point, but if your character has really bad mental abilities (a 6 INT qualifies), then I'm going to model that occasionally in game so that your choice was meaningful. Similarly, if you have really great mental abilities, I'm also going to model that in game so that your choice was meaningful. As I said before, i do this with CHA in a largely passive way -- if you have a low CHA, people either tend to ignore you or treat you like you're a jerk even if, as a player, you deliver Shakespeare on demand. If you have a high CHA, people will pay attention to what you say and agree more often than not, even if you have the real life personal presence of a rock hiding behind a potted plant. I don't see any reason to not do the same for INT. Low INT - bad guys will often anticipate you, even if your plan was [airquote] brilliant [/airquote]. A high INT, then even your bad plans will often work, as the bad guys won't anticipate that. This gets magnified or reduces by the INT of the badguys. Super geniuses won't be often fooled (nor will they fool you), barely functional ignoramuses will quite often be befuddled by everyone.

 

[Phantarch]

Again, personal opinion/experience, but I feel like some of this stems from societal expectations. For whatever reason, it is socially unacceptable to judge another person's intelligence. It's perfectly OK to objectively prove that you are faster or stronger than someone else, even to boast about it. However, insulting someone's intelligence is a major faux pas. Rather, you always hear, "well, different people are smart in different areas", or some similar justification for why an objectively less intelligent person is an equal to an objectively more intelligent person. Intelligence is the one attribute that I've seen the most people be defensive and sensitive about ("You think you're smarter than me?!"). Regardless of the reason (for which I can only theorize), discussing another person's intelligence is a sensitive subject, and I think this has a tendency to carry over into the game.

 

[Fimbria]

Just to muddy the debate.

The classes, ranked by intelligence

Fighter
Traditional intelligence score: 8
Uses it for: Studying Sun Tzu's The Art of War to learn military tactics and Machiavelli's The Prince to learn political theory
Traditional role in society: Becoming king and bringing order and prosperity to the land

Cleric
Traditional intelligence score: 8
Uses it for: Learning the history and politics of local, international, and celestial communities
Traditional role in society: Offering sound advice to kings as a trusted member of a church

Druid
Traditional intelligence: 10
Uses it for: Memorizing the medical uses of hundreds of plants and understanding the moral foundations of the universe
Traditional role in society: Maintaining a wildlife preserve, bringing balance to the alignment grid, and occasionally acting as a doctor to critically injured heroes

Bard
Traditional intelligence score: 10-12
Uses it for: Learning musical theory
Traditional role in society: Graduating from bard school, then playing music as a wandering minstrel

Rogue
Traditional intelligence score: 12-14
Uses it for: more skills, such as sneaking and lockpicking
Traditional role in society: Boshing people in dark alleys and stealing their wallets

Wizard
Traditional intelligence score: 18-20
Uses it for: +1 to lighting people on fire
Traditional role in society: Living alone in a tower and terrorizing the countryside as an insane villain

In D&D, a character's Intelligence score is inversely correlated with the complexity of a character's actions and directly correlated with antisocial behavior.

(The monk spends all day sitting on a rock thinking, yet never gets any smarter. I never figured that one out.)

 

[NotActuallyTim]

(The monk spends all day sitting on a rock thinking, yet never gets any smarter. I never figured that one out.)

It takes the monk a really, really long time to figure out what they want for breakfast.

 

[Phantarch]

I just keep hearing Forrest Gump saying, "Stupid is as stupid does."