D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[MG.0]

The idea of limiting player input into their character's actions based on INT is something I would not do. Whether or not your character comes up with brilliant or stupid ideas is completely driven by the player. It is part of the game. To play it otherwise turns the character into an automaton.

There are already some real benefits to high INT that have been listed already. This is an open ended game people. If the problem is a lack of mechanical benefits, then make some new ones.

There does seem to be a real shortage of spells beyond illusions that require INT saves. Make some new spells. Give NPC casters these new spells. Mix liberally with existing illusionist spells (which can be downright vicious against a low INT character).

Create some magic items that demand a high INT to use...I'm thinking really powerful intelligent weapons that will completely dominate a low INT character. That will make that Paladin wish he was smarter.

Create situations where high INT can have a real impact on the game - base them on the INT skills:
Arcana
History
Investigation
Nature
Religion

For example, The party finds themselves trapped in a room with magical artifacts that have nasty effects on low INT characters. A series of arcana checks are required on each artifact to disable them.

Etc.

It just requires a little imagination. Why do so many people act like if something isn't in the PHB then it's a problem?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think anyone is arguing that they're being forced to so something they don't enjoy because the mechanics are inferior. .

Yeah, they are.

Pardon my hyperbole, but the point was that players always have to pick a weakest stat, and the structure of the rules are pushing players to make INT that stat (also STR, probably both).

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.

We also, though, try to play our characters in a manner we deem effective. Because if we're just roleplaying everything it isn't really a game, and we enjoy games.

Firstly, I didn't say just to role play everything. This also comes awfully close to a "no true Scotsman". I said that we don't let ourselves be slaves to a rule or min/maxing to prevent us from roleplaying the theme we want to play. Those comments were in response to the quotes above, where it was said that people are being punished by the mechanics or being pushed into playing something they don't want to play. (e.g. someone wanting to play an intelligent fighter, but being "pushed' into using INT as a dump stat because it's mechanically inferior to another stat).

We enjoy challenges being placed before us and we enjoy trying to overcome those challenges. Building an effective characters combined with an effective party is part of that challenge. And even then, we aren't powergamers. Our barbarian didn't take a level of bard for any reason other than she wanted to play a drum. I know that a lot of my personal character creation choices are driven more by what my character would realistically have rather than what's mechanically most relevant.

But there comes a time where you do have to assign scores to your character. You have limited resources and they need to be divided. And when it comes down to asking "Well, how strong would my character be? Is he especially charismatic? Can he dodge arrows and roll through danger?" There's no real mechanical incentive or inspiration in most cases to say anything other than "His intelligence is probably only average." Not bothering to raise your int above the base 8 isn't a failure in roleplaying, it's a part of roleplaying inspired by a lack of mechanical relevance to intelligence.

Again, I never said it was a failure of roleplaying. I said that roleplaying the type of character you want shouldn't be driven by metagaming mechanics unless that's your goal. Because the reality is that this game is about pretend. Play the type of character you want. To head off a potential argument I've seen before, that doesn't mean that your character has to be ineffective mechanically. Not the best build =/= ineffective. But if you chose to build your character based on metagaming modifiers values in direct conflict of what you wanted to play, then yes, you very much are sacrificing role playing for roll playing. It's sort of the very definition of that.

From the very first day of D&D, the rules were there just to give you structure for your pretend sessions of fantasy heroism. Your imagination was always the first priority. In that context, the rules aren't forcing or coercing anyone into anything. 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. That's how strongly the foundation of the game was built to use rules only as guidelines.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The argument people are making here is that low INT characters shouldn't be able to have clever plans, even if the player is clever.

That argument only works if it accounts for high INT characters as well...but just "being the DM" doesn't give you the adequate resources to be able to say you know what a 20 INT plan looks like. In other words, if a DM can forbid a clever plan from a low INT character, then a normal INT player playing a high INT character should just be able to say "I come up with something clever," and have it work.

Naw, 6 int characters can have clever plans, but they'll have very few parts to them and be much more straightforward than a 20 int character's plan. If a player of a 6 int character comes up with a multi-part, highly complex plan, I have no problem failing it at a critical point (I'd ask for a INT check to be fair), with a failure meaning that either the bad guys anticipated the plan or the party fails in coordination badly. Similarly, if a character with a 20 INT comes up with a plan I know is somewhat flawed, I give it the benefit of the doubt and have it be surprising to the bad guys. Much like when one of my more glib players dumps CHA, even his best doesn't get much out of NPCs -- they all kinda treat him as an . Whereas when my shy players play a high CHA character, they have a hard time messing up conversations as the NPCs will react much more positively towards them. I take these things into account when I have the world react to player actions.

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure why you're so vehemently ignoring the core stats as part of these things.

The rules tell me what I need to do: "Inspiration is a rule the Dungeon Master can use to reward you for playing your character in a way that’s true to his or her personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw." DMs can, of course, award Inspiration for any reason, but I think this is a clearer, more concrete standard players can use to make decisions about how to roleplay their characters rather than how they imagine the DM thinks a 6-Intelligence character should be played. "I idolize a particular hero of my faith, and constantly refer to that person’s deeds and example..." (a personality trait from the acolyte background) is clear. What the DM thinks is too smart for the 6-Intelligence fighter is not.

They are the core stats for a reason, the very central definitions of a character, strong, smart, sexy, suave, etc... If a player isn't playing to them as well as other features of the character, again, why have them?

I didn't answer this one three times, just the once. But here's my answer.

No, as I said, I think 3 times now, their idea simply doesn't come across well in character. There are degrees to failure.

It's not clear to me what this means. Are the other players instructed to pretend not to know what the 6-Int character is saying based on a failed Intelligence check?

 

[Caffe Nightcap]

I always laugh because if I'm really strong and good with a sword in real life playing a str 8 wizard isn't helped but if I'm a good salesman and a little brilliant but play a int 8 and cha 8 character I can be my way through it

Exactly!

We made the character. We assigned the stats. We picked the backgrounds, traits, flaws. We should play them like we made them...otherwise why are there stats at all. Just throw the character sheet away and tell stories. It is easy to overlook the fact that we are not our characters...usually the game mechanics remind us by requiring an ability check. Sure, it isn't feasible or fun to ask someone to make an INT check to come up with an idea...but that isn't the point, desire, nor anything other than a suggestion for reminding the player that they need to play the character that they made. I would simply offer the the player they idea that a character with a minus in a stat, should act like they have a minus in a stat, because there aren't game mechanics for INT that provide for such bounds, and that it wouldn't be fair for him to cause a disruption for the other players by having the GM require INT checks to keep him in line when he should be willing to play his character the way he made him...and even be so kind as to allow him to reassign his stats to the way he wants his character to be.

...and to those who say 8 is smart enough; It is smart enough...for a minus 1 penalty. Juxtapose it with a Fighter who is so weak that he takes a minus 1 to every attack and damage roll, who can't even carry his heavy armor easily. Compare it to a Rogue, who is so clumsy that he takes a minus 1 on every DEX ability check, every lock, every sleight of hand. It isn't dumb, but it has a penalty. The game sets bounds for every other ability check we, as players, have our characters attempt. Jump a cliff, pick a lock, stab something stabable? Roll a die and apply a bonus (or penalty). INT, and CHA, are the only abilities that spend most of the game dodging the bounds of ability checks. It is up to the players to stay within the constraints that they chose.

 

[iserith]

We made the character. We assigned the stats. We picked the backgrounds, traits, flaws. We should play them like we made them...

And that's a fine way for a player to choose to play and most do in my experience. I do it myself. I just don't demand it of others.

 

[Sunseeker]

The rules tell me what I need to do: "Inspiration is a rule the Dungeon Master can use to reward you for playing your character in a way that’s true to his or her personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw." DMs can, of course, award Inspiration for any reason, but I think this is a clearer, more concrete standard players can use to make decisions about how to roleplay their characters rather than how they imagine the DM thinks a 6-Intelligence character should be played. "I idolize a particular hero of my faith, and constantly refer to that person’s deeds and example..." (a personality trait from the acolyte background) is clear. What the DM thinks is too smart for the 6-Intelligence fighter is not.

You must not have people who do much RP. Playing your character in a way that's true to their character traits is expected at my table. Going outside of that, especially often, gets you the stinkeye and may earn you a boot if it becomes disruptive.

I didn't answer this one three times, just the once. But here's my answer.

Which again leads me to be believe we have an inherently different view of the game. That's fine. I'm not here to convince my way is correct. To me, the core stats are as much a part of defining who and what your character is as his traits bonds and flaws. Obviously you see them solely in a more mechanical-oriented light and not as rp-defining aspects. That's fine.

It's not clear to me what this means. Are the other players instructed to pretend not to know what the 6-Int character is saying based on a failed Intelligence check?

Yes. That's what RP is about. Acting out how you would respond in character. Your questions strike me as odd and I can only surmise you really don't emphasize the RP in your RPGs. Which again is fine. But these sound like very basic role-play questions. There's a lot of things that fly from the players mouths that the characters don't know about and yes, I do expect players to play to what their character knows. That's pretty basic RP 101 and How-Not-To-Metagame 101.

 

[jgsugden]

Role playing means playing a role, not being yourself.

When we play D&D our roles are defined by our character's attributes. If the character has a low intelligence, we should be playing that low intelligence. Part of that is pure acting. Part of that is left to the dice. Why? Partly because the rules tell us to use intelligence ability checks when we want to determine if our character has the memory, deductive reasoning and/or knowledge necessary to handle a situation where knowing what our character could do is significant. Partly because it is the way to make these ability scores significant for all the PCs so that they don't end up being dump stats for all non-wizard PCs.

 

[iserith]

You must not have people who do much RP.

That's not the case, no.

To me, the core stats are as much a part of defining who and what your character is as his traits bonds and flaws. Obviously you see them solely in a more mechanical-oriented light and not as rp-defining aspects. That's fine.

That is not the case either. I see them as scores used to figure out bonuses to ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. But I also see then as a guide to roleplaying, if a player chooses to do that. I do not mandate that they do, as a player or DM.

Yes. That's what RP is about. Acting out how you would respond in character.

Roleplaying is about playing a role, where the player determines how the character thinks, acts, and talks. The player has full control over this. There is no mandate to play a particular way, by the rules anyway.

Your questions strike me as odd and I can only surmise you really don't emphasize the RP in your RPGs. Which again is fine.

Not a good surmise today.

But these sound like very basic role-play questions. There's a lot of things that fly from the players mouths that the characters don't know about and yes, I do expect players to play to what their character knows. That's pretty basic RP 101 and How-Not-To-Metagame 101.

It's pretty easy to justify what a character knows. Or to act on the thing rather than talk about it and risk the DM judging your roleplay and asking for an ability check.

 

[abirdcall]

Story time. I played in a game recently, where against my recommendations we rolled stats.

I had an 8 int and a 6 wis. I played my character as not being able to remember much in the way of facts. This didn't preclude me from sometimes having brilliant ideas or speaking in a convincing manner (15 cha and expertise in Deception helped there). They did tend to not pay attention to their environment and were quite impulsive.

This was my interpretation of those stats for my character. Another player had rolled very high stats and their int was their dump stat at 12. They played their character like he was as dumb as bricks, so much so that he spoke in broken english and with a funny voice, and said that was what represented a 12 int. Obviously we disagreed.

It is not okay to dictate to someone how to play their character based on what their stats are and for the record and 8 int is really not that low. We're looking at bachelor level of education if desired. Heck, higher levels are still attainable if you have the money.

Why can't I play an 8 int character with expertise in arcana and history? It's perfectly in the rules. And if I can, what does that tell you about what intelligence means?