D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[rollingForInit]

Those who feel that someone should be able to dump INT...not just to "normal" levels...but truly as a very low stat dump, and don't understand how the player acting as if this shouldn't have in game consequences or requirements is "wrong", are actively engaging in, and providing a real life example of, dumping the INT stat.

If a player dumped CON would you let her have the survival of a high CON character?
If a player dumped STR would you let her add damage to her melee attacks, break her own chains, or lift the portcullis?
If a player dumped CHA would you let her say her character is of flawless beauty AND let her RP out the most eloquent and charming seduction of the King's messenger?

The first two are covered completely by the rules and the mechanics of the game. HP is determined by Con, damage is determined by Str (or Dex).

The third is not covered at all. I'd totally let a person play an 8 Cha character that's super beautiful (whatever counts as beauty in the setting). Appearance and Charisma are not the same thing. You can be really ugly and have 20 charisma, or really hot and have 8. Charisma is more about having a force of personality. A person can be very nice and charming without actually being successful at convincing someone of something. Even people who aren't typically very persuasive can have moments when they are, and if a player gets on a really great role-playing streak in that regard, then I don't see why not. I might still have the player actually roll for the results (if the person had 20 Charisma, I might not require it at all), and if the roll fails the NPC could still have a really good impression of the PC, but just not be convinced. If a player goes overboard and plays the Charisma 8 character as always being persuasive and charismatic, then I might suggest that the player play characters that actually is, stat-wise. But having 8 Charisma doesn't mean you're a troll or a social pariah.

And 8 is typically what people dump stats to, since you can't go lower with points buy or the standard array. Sure if we get down to stats 5 and below, we end up with something very different.

 

[MG.0]

Heck, even in the 1e DMG it's explicitly called out that anyone "using the books (rules) as a defense" to a DM ruling should be expelled from the campaign.

I still play that way.

 

[Blue]

This is no different than when a charismatic player runs a character who has dumped Charisma, and tries to talk his way through everything. I find asking "Would your character really do that?" And the like often reigns in this kind of metagaming. But sometimes the occasional DC check, with actual in game concequences on the line, is necessary.

Some comments in this thread are along the lines of "this is punitive" etc. But I have found that the "failures" in these type of situations are no better/worse for the game than the "successes". What is important is that the outcomes are fun and memorable; not that they are exactly what a player was planning/hoping for.

I can sympathize. Not "Would your character do that" but "would they be successful at doing that".

I play in two 5e games, and the DM from one is a player in the second. In the first I'm playing a paladin with high charisma, persuasion and deception (makes sense for the character) with average Int. He doesn't come up with the greatest plans, but he's heck at convincing people. In the second game, I play a wizard with the highest Int and a 10 Charisma and not trained in any social skills. I can suggest things to other PCs, but unless I roll lucky I don't have a chance to convince others. Last session the only high-charisma character was the doesn't-give-a-dang drow rogue who doesn't back down, at a time when toadying or at least some restraint and agreement would have been useful. We got in lots of trouble. (And it was fun!)

So it works out fine - the rolls help show the success of the player's actions. Too bad there isn't a tactics skills. Not to roll against for "did you think of that", but something that could be used regularly to give bonuses/buffs for following a plan that encounter building math took into consideration. So if the smart character+smart player comes up with a plan and you follow it, you're doing well. If the smart-player with the stupid character came up with a plan, you've got a good plan but not the buffs.

 

[Blue]

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.

You wouldn't let a player who is an SCA fighter but playing a wizard let the player's fighting skills give his character bonuses to hit and damage and weapon proficiencies. You don't let a strong player's character carry more. The players guide the action, but the mechanics tell the success or failure.

I've had shy and quiet players wanting to play outspoken charismatic characters. If you can play a fireball-tossing wizard, why not that. So that's okay, where the character focus on that build, taking a high charisma and social skills, allowing you to play something you aren't.

But then what about a witty and sociable player who builds their characters with another focus, having high other skills and/or great damage/survivability in combat. They don't have any social skills and Chr is their dump stat. But the player can talk up a storm. Should they get all of what they build their character around because of the mechanics AND all of what the other player build their character around because they are well-spoken?

You can talk a good spiel and as DM I may give Advantage or bonuses because of what you are saying, but the die rolls will determine how well it comes across to the NPCs. Anything else is unfair to the players who are building their character that route.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's exactly right. No one I know of lets a player who is very strong translate into his STR 8 Wizard being able to accomplish feats of strength that normally only a high STR PC could achieve, so why do we (as a whole) allow it to work with INT, WIS, and CHA? Please don't mistake me, I do think player skill does have a place, and it often makes the game session more fun, but ultimately it should match what the PC skills are, not the players.

IMO, the definition of role playing is taking on a role of another being during the game. If that being is low INT, or low CHA, or whatever, part of good role playing is integrating that into your persona as you play, not ignoring it.

 

[Hriston]

To address the perceived problem that some have with a high intelligence player playing a low intelligence character and having ideas that are "too good" for that character, and likewise the problem of a low intelligence player not being able to think well enough to convincingly play a high intelligence character, I would suggest following the advice that Brian Blume gave in his article "So, You Want Realism in D&D?", The Dragon #8, p.23.

Have your players take IQ tests and divide the result by 10. This is the Intelligence score for any character they wish to play. This solves the problem of incongruity without inhibiting the players' role-playing.

 

[Yardiff]

'Grog Haggling' at Reddit.com

A good example of rloeplaying a low int. At least I think its a good example.

 

[Uchawi]

Just like there is a definite Strength check in the game for heavy lifting, there should be the appropriate Intelligence check in the game for mental lifting. That is one advantage a skill based game like GURPs has over D&D.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

I know houserules aren't relevant to this, but at my game INT+1 is the number of languages you can be literate in (you can know more, but only read and write INT+1). As for the about forbidding a low-int player from formulating a strategy, I tend to look at my players of people of average intelligence+/-1, so if they can think of a strategy it's fair game.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

The biggest issue with Intelligence stems from people's overreliance on Perception to "notice things."

If you want Intelligence to matter, the easiest way is to shift focus from noticing, to understanding - it's all well and good if a player notices a pile of broken twigs but feel free to decide an Investigation check is required to avoid surprise by deducing you're about to be ambushed.

I do agree, however, that maybe it's time they simply merged Intelligence and Wisdom together into a single Attribute, such as Smarts, and allowed players to decide whether or not book smarts or street smarts mattered. (A bit like how a player can decide if their charismatic character is attractive or eloquent.

To me Int is also the stat used for remembering things.
For example if I drop a name of a NPC that the player characters met before, and see that the players don't remember interligence checks are a way to see if the characters do remember.