D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[BoldItalic]

No-one here seems to have asked: why would an Int 19 wizard want to have an Int 8 player behind him, holding him back? Wouldn't he switch to a smarter player? I'm sure mine would.

Hey, where's my character sheet gone? Has anyone seen my character sheet? I'm sure it was in my folder yesterday, with my dice bag. Come on guys, who's fooling around? I need Ranthus the Whizzbang for tonight's game!

 

[Mondobone]

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

Well the whole thread was made saying that intelligence needed to govern more rolls. More game mechanics needed to draw on intelligence. The usual argument that's been popping up is that "it's for roleplaying". In your case, I have asked "Aren't the other stats also for roleplaying?" And while you've answered yes, they're also apparently roleplayed completely differently. i.e., not at all. They're just rolled when a check or save calls for them.

What I asked when I made this thread is whether or not it seemed like there weren't many checks or saving throws that used int. My argument is that it should be used for more things. My argument is that intelligence should be "roleplayed" in the same way as strength, dexterity, or constitution. Your character should be displayed as intelligent or unintelligent based on their successes and failures when the party encounters a challenge.

What I am asking is why you are okay with physical "roleplaying" being done through rolls, but when I request that mental "roleplaying" be done through rolls that's problematic.

 

[Sadras]

Chimpanzees can formulate pretty sophisticated hunting and raiding strategies, they also patrol.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'pretty sophisticated'
Is it pretty sophisticated when compared to other animals or pretty sophisticated in general?
What is pretty sophisticated to you?

I don't equate low INT with organic retardation, given that these characters are professional adventurers.

So is the class the motivating factor for you? If yes, would it be fair to state peasants (given they are not professional anything) with an Int 6 would be bordering on organic retardation?

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.

So for math-like puzzles, you wouldn't allow the player to participate with the rest of the party unless the player rolled a successful skill check?

 

[BoldItalic]

...

What I am asking is why you are okay with physical "roleplaying" being done through rolls, but when I request that mental "roleplaying" be done through rolls that's problematic.

It's problematic because roleplaying is itself a mental exercise and the mind of the character is intimately related to the mind of the player, whereas the body of the character is disconnected from the body of the player.

The player doesn't physically swing battleaxes or jump over chasms on behalf of the character, but he does make all the decisions for him. Regardless of any kind of randomizing, the character can only have a bright idea if the player does it for him. Imaginary mental activity by the character is different from imaginary physical activity.

We can all pretend to be dumber than we really are, just by thinking "what's really smart?" and no doing it. What none of us can do is to pretend to be smarter than we really are because we don't know how.

Physical activity can be reduced to numbers and probabilities. I can jump this far, sometimes, but not that far, ever. I can hit this hard but not that hard. Physics is quantitative. You can imitate it with rules and dice rolls.

Mental activity can't be reduced to numbers and probabilities. Maybe one day it will be, but so far psychology and neurophysiology haven't caught up with physics. You can't imitate it with rules and dice rolls. It's somehow more than that.

What makes the game fun, at least for me, is the "more than that" part.

Is this post thought-provoking or amusing? Roll d20. On 18-20, give it XP. On 1-3, give it a Laugh. Or .. maybe there's something wrong with doing that?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's problematic because roleplaying is itself a mental exercise and the mind of the character is intimately related to the mind of the player, whereas the body of the character is disconnected from the body of the player.

The player doesn't physically swing battleaxes or jump over chasms on behalf of the character, but he does make all the decisions for him. Regardless of any kind of randomizing, the character can only have a bright idea if the player does it for him. Imaginary mental activity by the character is different from imaginary physical activity.

We can all pretend to be dumber than we really are, just by thinking "what's really smart?" and no doing it. What none of us can do is to pretend to be smarter than we really are because we don't know how.

Physical activity can be reduced to numbers and probabilities. I can jump this far, sometimes, but not that far, ever. I can hit this hard but not that hard. Physics is quantitative. You can imitate it with rules and dice rolls.

Mental activity can't be reduced to numbers and probabilities. Maybe one day it will be, but so far psychology and neurophysiology haven't caught up with physics. You can't imitate it with rules and dice rolls. It's somehow more than that.

What makes the game fun, at least for me, is the "more than that" part.

Is this post thought-provoking or amusing? Roll d20. On 18-20, give it XP. On 1-3, give it a Laugh. Or .. maybe there's something wrong with doing that?

I've played very dumb characters before. Int 6 and had a blast. Whenever someone would explain a plan to me, I would write down every other word and then use those as the plan. It's about finding a good way to model your character's deficiencies. If the player's doing a good job, I don't bother. If they're not, I do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"In war, everything is very simple. But the simple things are very complicated." - Clausewitz

Gah! Clausewitz is not Yogi Berra. The actual quote is: "Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult." Similar to yours, but a very different connotation.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Slightly related to this discussion I have a VERY hard time putting anything less than a 10 into Int when creating a character for many of the RP reasons brought up thus far.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mental activity can't be reduced to numbers and probabilities.

This is totally the case in the real world.

Yet my D&D character has an Intelligence score and a Charisma score and a Wisdom score in an effort for the game system to do just that.

So what's wrong with embracing the idea that the mechanics can help us pretend to be more or less smart/insightful/persuasive as a character than we actually are as players?

 

[iserith]

Ability scores cover all aspects of said ability equally. Take Int, its covers mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and ability to reason. A low ability scores means your equally low in all aspects of that ability.

The issue I have with this, other than somebody telling a player how to roleplay his or her own character, is that I can never really know what the DM is going to think constitutes an "8-Int" idea. I'm only going to get the stick (a scowl and a call for an ability check) when I have my character act in a fashion that the DM thinks is too smart for his or her score.

Compare this with the very simple - and already extant - mechanic for Inspiration where I get the carrot (the option to roll any d20 I want with advantage later on) for acting in one of four clearly defined ways. If I want the carrot, I know what to do.

In a game with friends, I prefer the carrot, not the stick, and clarity to vague, arbitrary calls by the DM as to what kinds of ideas a low-INT character may have.

Edit: I'll add a quote from someone I was talking to yesterday about this issue on Twitter because it's great - "Who the flumph wants to put a tax on good ideas? Got too many of those in your game?"

 

[Mondobone]

We can all pretend to be dumber than we really are, just by thinking "what's really smart?" and no doing it. What none of us can do is to pretend to be smarter than we really are because we don't know how.

Isn't that an argument in favor of having more intelligence based rolls? You should be able to play a character that is smarter than you, right? Yet if we rely purely on roleplaying to give intelligence meaning, then that isn't actually an option.