D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[Celtavian]

I do wish intelligence had a meaningful effect on your ability to learn skills or languages. They at least allowed more languages learned for a high intelligence. It would be nice if a high intelligence allowed for more skill or tool proficiencies. I imagine they didn't want to model high intelligence having a meaningful effect on learning in this edition. This edition is meant to be played in a fast, loose fashion. If you want things like intelligence and lore to be meaningful, up to you to make it happen.

 

[Yardiff]

Wrong. A high Charisma doesn't necessarily correlate to good looks. In fact, there are many people who are incredibly attractive that cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. Likewise, some of the most charismatic people in history (Hitler, Napoleon) are so ugly that they could knock a dog off a meat truck. Why does intelligence have to cover every aspect of what we know intelligence to be, but clearly charisma doesn't. Sorry, but if you are average in all aspects of intelligence, but have a serious case of CRS syndrome (Can't Remember ), then an 8 in intelligence sounds appropriate.

At what point did I say theat physical looks are linked to Cha stat???

Also wanting to bring mental issues into the game to explain the way you want to play your character should be cleared with the GM, of course that my opinion.

 

[S'mon]

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.

For me I guess it depends how complex is complex. Chimpanzees can formulate pretty
sophisticated hunting and raiding strategies, they also patrol. An INT 6 warrior-class
character should be at least similarly capable IMO. I don't equate low INT with organic
retardation, given that these characters are professional adventurers. OTOH there are certain analytical abilities the character should be bad at, but these are mostly the kind of things the GM would already call checks for.

 

[S'mon]

Sure it is, and I wouldn't find it unreasonable for Muscle John to think that acting on his own might be better than potentially failing to properly communicate his plan to the party; I see that as good role-play. Muscle John doesn't understand strategy and tactics, so when everyone starts strategizing, he gets antsy and starts looking for something to punch.

Sounds reasonable play for INT 6 WIS 5, if that's how the player wants to play their character.
There's a Thief, Claudia, in my Classic D&D game with INT 10 WIS 7 - most of the time she's normal, but occasionally she does things that are very rash, and that's the player's choice.

 

[S'mon]

Is his plan, lets send two men over to that ledge where they'll do this and that and send another guy over there where they'll do some other things, etc..." heck, even the 18 Int Wizard might have to make a check if the plan is complicated enough, shoot it might even be too complex for the rest of the party to properly execute!

Sounds like a low-WIS plan to me!

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
"In war, everything is very simple. But the simple things are very complicated." - Clausewitz

The most effective plans tend to be direct & straightforward, otherwise they're likely not capabe of successful implementation in the face of battlefield 'friction'. Knowing this in an abstract sense may well be a function of INT, but it doesn't take high INT to act on it intuitively.

Edit: In my real-life experience, the difference between high and low INT (intelligence) tends to be in the flexibility of response - lower INT types can formulate plans, but will tend to implement them procedurally and linearly, and won't respond quickly to rapidly changing situation. A high INT allows faster improvisation and focus
on goals over procedure. In military theory terms a high INT gives a faster OODA loop
(Observe Orient Decide Act) and better decisions. But in D&D action/reaction speed is a function of Dexterity, and INT is restricted to learning & analysis.

 

[Mondobone]

See I disagree, your characters stats ARE who your character is otherwise your just playing yourself.

Your character is far more than just your intelligence score, hopefully. If all of your characters are just yourself with a different INT score, I think there's more going wrong at your table than at mine. History and background, skills and training, likes and dislikes, personality and motivation...and none of that is even really affected by intelligence. All of these things make up your character and make roleplaying interesting. An inability to put especially complex plans into motion is not interesting. Having to step away from conversation is not interesting. And not just for the player, but for everyone at the table.

And again, you can't really roleplay your physical scores, so it's really setting a double standard there.

 

[Mondobone]

Again, when you say things like "previously", you need to be specific. There are 6 editions of D&D (more if you count the Basic line). The game has been around for a long time, and therefore you can't really use what happened for a few years over the 40 year history as a baseline.

Okay, well, I meant in 3.5. That was my previously. I am comparing 5 to 3.5. This seems like a rather semantic fact, but I'm more than happy to clear that up.

 

[Yardiff]

And again, you can't really roleplay your physical scores, so it's really setting a double standard there.

Combat and any physical feat you have your character try is rolepleying your physical scores.

 

[Mondobone]

Combat and any physical feat you have your character try is rolepleying your physical scores.

So why is it acceptable for those to be governed by rolls, while your mental stats have to be covered with your own acting? Why is it wrong for more rolls and stats to be attached to your mental statistics?

 

[Yardiff]

So why is it acceptable for those to be governed by rolls, while your mental stats have to be covered with your own acting? Why is it wrong for more rolls and stats to be attached to your mental statistics?

Soryy but I have no clue what your trying to ask here.