D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[Uchawi]

I tend to limit low ability scores to 8 as a DM, unless the player convinces me there is a roleplaying reason and they are up to task. I hate getting into scenarios as a DM where I am always second guessing the players actions. I don't see much good that comes out of that type of relationship.

 

[Sunseeker]

I read Hrothgar's post as humorous. Is this really a thing you do at your table?

Yes. What's the point in having scores if you're only going to use them when they're inferior to the "scores" of the player? We would ask for a strength check if a character were to attempt to move a boulder, unless their strength was so high that victory was without question. Why would we not ask for an intelligence check if there is a question of the character's ability to plan a battle or engineer a building? If their intelligence is high enough for success to happen without question, then there's no need to roll. But there's a very valid reason why folks with an int of 6 are not strategists, engineers or wizards.

On top of that, it's unfair to the rest of the party. You pick your stats because you want to be good at the things those stats imply. Hitting things. Enduring things. Avoiding things. Thinking things. Knowing things. Impressing people. In a general sense, that's what these stats tell the game you're good at. You picked them, hopefully, because you want your character to be good at those things and not simply because you were power-gaming. Even if you did, if your stats are telling the game you're not good at thinking, then allowing a character to plan a battle as though they were devalues the stat. Might as well be a 20, or a 0. It has no meaning and it makes other players, who want to be good at those things feel like their choices were meaningless. Because they are. Because in ignoring the stats you have stripped them of meaning.

If the players want to OOC figure out a plan and then in-game have the smart guy present it to the King, I'm 100% fine with that. That's what the player/character dichotomy is good for. That's why I encourage people to make well-rounded characters.

So yes, to sum it up, using your brainmeats is no different than using your armmeats. If the outcome is in doubt due to your stats in those areas, I will make you roll to see if you had a moment of brilliance and can convey your Player thoughts appropriately through your character's stats.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have never been a fan of dump stats that are overruled by player action over character action. To me, that ignores what role playing is all about.

 

[Hriston]

I feel a role-play vs. roll-play debate coming on!

 

[iserith]

Yes. What's the point in having scores if you're only going to use them when they're inferior to the "scores" of the player?

The three main rolls of the game — the ability check, the saving throw, the attack roll — rely upon Intelligence (among other ability scores).

We would ask for a strength check if a character were to attempt to move a boulder, unless their strength was so high that victory was without question. Why would we not ask for an intelligence check if there is a question of the character's ability to plan a battle or engineer a building? If their intelligence is high enough for success to happen without question, then there's no need to roll. But there's a very valid reason why folks with an int of 6 are not strategists, engineers or wizards.

Are you asking for the check to see if the player can even have his or her character formulate these battle plans or engineering? Or are you testing the outcome of the battle plans or engineering via an Intelligence ability check once acted upon?

On top of that, it's unfair to the rest of the party. You pick your stats because you want to be good at the things those stats imply. Hitting things. Enduring things. Avoiding things. Thinking things. Knowing things. Impressing people. In a general sense, that's what these stats tell the game you're good at. You picked them, hopefully, because you want your character to be good at those things and not simply because you were power-gaming. Even if you did, if your stats are telling the game you're not good at thinking, then allowing a character to plan a battle as though they were devalues the stat. Might as well be a 20, or a 0. It has no meaning and it makes other players, who want to be good at those things feel like their choices were meaningless. Because they are. Because in ignoring the stats you have stripped them of meaning.

In my view, they're just numbers that modify particular die rolls and it's up to the player, not the DM, to decide what those numbers mean when the player is making decisions for the character. As a DM, all I care about is the player's stated goal and approach relative to the challenge being presented. If the character has a personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw that amounts to "I'm as smart as a bag of hair..." and the player chooses to play to that, it might be worth Inspiration. I will thus reward playing to such established characterization, not penalize it by asking for an ability check when I arbitrarily decide that the character isn't smart enough to suggest a course of action.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I feel a role-play vs. roll-play debate coming on!

No, it's not even that. At least with roll play, you put everything into terms of modifiers and go by what those are. What I'm referring to is ignoring the low modifiers or rating completely, because you as a player are smarter or more charismatic than your PC that used a dump stat for, and you're using player ability over character ability for those dump stats.

 

[The Lich]

What?

Did I not type loudly enough?

 

[Minigiant]

When it comes to Intelligence and plan making, I typically go with the people that if a player thought up a plan then the PC with the highest INT, 2nd highest INT, or the PC with the appropriate skill thought it up. So no check.

It's only when the idiot PC is alone or when the idiot PC disagrees with the rest of the party do I call for "stupid checks", "fool checks", or "jerk/loudmouth/shy checks".

Since players rarely split up, it's rarely an issue.
Put when your party split ups, personal Intelligence is very very very very very very very very very very very important.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it's not even that. At least with roll play, you put everything into terms of modifiers and go by what those are. What I'm referring to is ignoring the low modifiers or rating completely, because you as a player are smarter or more charismatic than your PC that used a dump stat for, and you're using player ability over character ability for those dump stats.

Well, you could do it the evil way. Nod when they come up with a brilliant plan, let them do it, and then have the bad guys completely anticipate the plan and counter it. Just because the plan is brilliant out of game, in game, someone with a 6 intelligence thought of it, so how brilliant could it have been?

 

[ccs]

In the past I've tied xp bonus/penalties to Int.
Ex: Pathfinder has a slow/medium/fast xp track. It's SUPPOSED to be for determining the pace of the campaign. I've just re-purposed it....
If you've got a negative int mod? You use the slow track. A 0 mod? The medium track. And a positive mod uses the fast track.

I've also tied skills to it alot more closely in 3x/pf. No longer does being a rogue/bard automatically start you with more skill points. Class dictates what skills you've got an advantage on (if you put points in it), but to get points you've got to 1st invest in Int. Smarter people have more skills....