D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[Sunseeker]

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

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[dmnqwk]

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.

 

[Gimul]

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.

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Exactly. And with good role-players who make their stat-decisions based on everything they want their characters to do in the game, from talking to fighting and more, it's not even a problem. People play dumb characters like they're dumb. But if the guy with the 6 int is always jumping in to determine battle plans, I'm going to start asking if he's really capable of doing so.

 

[famousringo]

Yes, the CHA/INT pendulum has swung too far. It's all well and good to say people should be role-playing their stats, but players shouldn't feel like they're being punished by the mechanics because they don't want to play a slack-jawed gomer. It would have been nice for INT to be a key stat for more than just one class, or more rewarding for non-wizards.

 

[rollingForInit]

In answer to OP's question: Yes, I think Intelligence is too weak compared to the other stats. It doesn't suck, but it's nowhere near as important for everyone as Dex, Con or Wis, for instance.

Regarding role-playing ... I've never understood the whole "Your character has too low intelligence to come up with that plan". The way I see it, any plan that a non-adventuring player that's got no training in combat/burglary/infiltration/etc can come up, a D&D character can come up with. The majority of all D&D players would have 8-12 intelligence, after all. And besides that, most adventurers have experience. A 40-year-old, Intelligence 8 Fighter who's a seasoned battle veteran should be able to come up with much more brilliant battle tactics than a really smart player. People put too much importance on pure intelligence if they say that the fighter would be too stupid to come up with a great idea.

I just use Intelligence for memory/knowledge checks, Investigation, solving puzzles, riddles or similar mental feats. If a character has lower than average intelligence, I might ask a player to explain how this reflects. Perhaps the character had a poor education and has some wholes in their general knowledge. Perhaps the character is lousy at mathematics. Perhaps the character is bad at logical deductions. Perhaps the character has trouble learning certain things, like memorising phrases in a new language.

All good ways to play low-int characters, but none of them means the character is too stupid to come up with a great idea.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, the CHA/INT pendulum has swung too far. It's all well and good to say people should be role-playing their stats, but players shouldn't feel like they're being punished by the mechanics because they don't want to play a slack-jawed gomer. It would have been nice for INT to be a key stat for more than just one class, or more rewarding for non-wizards.

Don't want to play a slack-jawed gomer? Then don't use your INT as a dump stat. Simple as that. Keep in mind, that an average rating isn't an idiot, so this isn't even an issue for people who use array. For random gen or point by, you could get below an 8, but not with array.

 

[BoldItalic]

Players with an int of 11 are allowed to play PCs of Int 19 or even 20. How do they do it?

DM: It's the wizard's turn next.
Player: My character does something clever
DM: Okay, what exactly are you going to do?
Player: I don't know. But my character does.
DM: Okay. *rolls some dice* It worked. Something incomprehensible happens.
DM: Rogue, you're next.
Rogue: I steal the wizard's idea. *rolls dice*
DM: Okay, you succeeded.
Rogue: I have this great idea.
DM: What is it?
Rogue: I don't know, but it's brilliant.
Wizard: Hey! That was my idea!

It doesn't really work, does it?

 

[MG.0]

At low levels, a low INT may not mean much to non-wizards except failing INT checks and saves vs. illusions (which can still be pretty bad in the right circumstances).

At medium to high levels, getting hit with some of the more powerful illusion or mind-affecting spells can be devastating. Let the players drop their INT as low as possible and when they get wiped out in combat because they get their brains scrambled, I guess they'll think twice (or once).

 

[iserith]

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".

In my view, it's up to the player to play however he or she wants, allowing the ability scores to influence decisions for the character or not. I don't concern myself with such things when I DM, nor do I see any compelling reason to start. I adjudicate fictional actions taken. I don't sit in judgment of whether an idea the player articulates is something the character could come up with. If the player is playing to established characterization, I have Inspiration as a reward.

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.

So, in your game, the smart play for me as a player is to simply act on good plans and tactics I've thought up rather than voice them beforehand so as to avoid you asking for a roll to see if the character could come up with such good plans or tactics in the first place, based upon your assessment of my character's Intelligence score. I could live with that (because I'd rather do stuff than talk about doing stuff), but you should be aware that this is what you're encouraging.

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.

What Intelligence score does a character need to have to come up with a good battle plan?