D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[BoldItalic]

...
We keep going back to plans, but that's the only time I've seen intelligence requirements come up in this thread. I asked once before for examples because I couldn't think of any, but can you name a really brilliant plan from a game you were in at some point? Because completely separate from whether intelligence checks are even a good idea for planning, I don't think a situation has come up in any of my games where someone would have had to make one.
...

Okay, just one example, then. There was a dwarf (not me) who was faced with a room-full of cultists in a temple with a polished stone floor. What did he do?

He held his battleaxe straight out in front of him, waist-high at arms length, rocked on one heel of his iron-shod boots and used the other foot to pedal himself round and round, faster and faster until he was spinning like a whirling dervish and his axe worked like a horizontal circular saw blade. Then, again pedalling his off-foot, he slowly advanced into the room like an unstoppable killing machine. Brilliant!

The DM gave him inspiration on the spot and rolled 3d6 to see how many cultists were scythed down. Afterwards, the player called it "mowing the lawn" and the name passed into legend.

Don't you have any moments like that in your games?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wasn't there a table in previous editions that explained the various score ranges of intelligence and what you could expect from each range? Perhaps it was in Pathfinder? I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere. I'm at work right now otherwise I would just look for myself...

Related to this, way back in June 1976 there was an article about how to use ability checks. No one I know actually used that cumbersome formula, instead just using a basic "roll d20, if you get at or below your score, you succeed". But this part might be relevant:

STRENGTH — Any extraordinary physical exertion.
INTELLIGENCE — Discovering proper method of operating all
mechanical devices, including all magical devices; Discerning
patterns; deducing cause & effect; recognizing types of lairs;
learning new languages and skills; etc.
WISDOM — divining “correct path” of action; recognizing function
of devices; etc.
CONSTITUTION — all questions of stamina — swimming, running,
staying awake, going hungry, etc.
DEXTERITY — manual manipulation of devices (he may know
what it does, and how to make it work, and still fumble when the
time comes to use it); balance and climbing; tying/untying knots;
etc.
CHARISMA— believability; persuasiveness; morale of
followers; etc.

 

[Shendorion]

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.

Says who? Where is it written that a low stat must indicate a pervasive, evenly distributed deficiency rather than a specific weakness that affects performance across a broad spectrum?

That seems to me to be a horribly simplistic and limiting way to interpret stats, and in no way reflected in life. You also argued up thread that you never conflated appearance with Charisma when someone used it to challenge this assertion, but will you deny that your appearance is a major component in your ability to persuade, influence and intimidate people?

I could play a low CHA as ugly. I could play it as personable but timid. I could play it as haughty. Hell, I could play low CHA as a gastric disease if the campaign is lighthearted enough to support a running gag. Any of those very specific interpretations will be borne out in the die rolls, limit my character's ability to affect the game world in the way stats are designed to work and be entertaining. It even provides narrative justification for the odd high roll - overcoming specific personal deficiencies is the stuff of good storytelling.

 

[Valador]

Related to this, way back in June 1976 there was an article about how to use ability checks. No one I know actually used that cumbersome formula, instead just using a basic "roll d20, if you get at or below your score, you succeed". But this part might be relevant:

STRENGTH — Any extraordinary physical exertion.
INTELLIGENCE — Discovering proper method of operating all
mechanical devices, including all magical devices; Discerning
patterns; deducing cause & effect; recognizing types of lairs;
learning new languages and skills; etc.
WISDOM — divining “correct path” of action; recognizing function
of devices; etc.
CONSTITUTION — all questions of stamina — swimming, running,
staying awake, going hungry, etc.
DEXTERITY — manual manipulation of devices (he may know
what it does, and how to make it work, and still fumble when the
time comes to use it); balance and climbing; tying/untying knots;
etc.
CHARISMA— believability; persuasiveness; morale of
followers; etc.

The table I'm referring to basically broke it and said, for example, INT 1-3 animal intelligence, not capable of speech, INT 4-7 capable of speech but retarded/slow, INT 8-10 normal functioning intelligence, etc.

I really wish I could recall where I saw it. I know at least in PF INT scores were referenced in relations to animal intelligence for them to coordinate attacks or understand commands, etc.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The table I'm referring to basically broke it and said, for example, INT 1-3 animal intelligence, not capable of speech, INT 4-7 capable of speech but retarded/slow, INT 8-10 normal functioning intelligence, etc.

I really wish I could recall where I saw it. I know at least in PF INT scores were referenced in relations to animal intelligence for them to coordinate attacks or understand commands, etc.

2e had that.

This ability gives only a general indication of a character's mental acuity. A semi-intelligent character (Int 3 or 4) can speak (with difficulty) and is apt to react instinctively and impulsively. He is not hopeless as a player character (PC), but playing such a character correctly is not easy. A character with low Intelligence (Int 5-7) could also be called dull-witted or slow. A very intelligent person (Int 11 or 12) picks up new ideas quickly and learns easily. A highly intelligent character (Int 13 or 14) is one who can solve most problems without even trying very hard. One with exceptional intelligence (Int 15 or 16) is noticeably above the norm. A genius character is brilliant (Int 17 or 18). A character beyond genius is potentially more clever and more brilliant than can possibly be imagined.
However, the true capabilities of a mind lie not in numbers--I.Q., Intelligence score, or whatever. Many intelligent, even brilliant, people in the real world fail to apply their minds creatively and usefully, thus falling far below their own potential. Don't rely too heavily on your character's Intelligence score; you must provide your character with the creativity and energy he supposedly possesses!

 

[iserith]

The table I'm referring to basically broke it and said, for example, INT 1-3 animal intelligence, not capable of speech, INT 4-7 capable of speech but retarded/slow, INT 8-10 normal functioning intelligence, etc.

I really wish I could recall where I saw it. I know at least in PF INT scores were referenced in relations to animal intelligence for them to coordinate attacks or understand commands, etc.

I think it's in an obscure splat book entitled "The Big Book of Silly Notions."

 

[S'mon]

1. 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?

2. 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?

1. No and no. The INT 6 peasant is probably slow normal. The INT 6 child of an INT 15
Wizard might well suffer from organic retardation, though. Maybe s/he was cursed by a
bad fairy.

2. If I was running an adventure with a real maths puzzle obviously that is there to challenge
the players not the characters, it's purely metagame. So the players solve it. I hate that
stuff though. I hate the GM expecting my INT 8 illiterate drunken dwarf battlerager to solve his pixel-bitch puzzle. I'm playing an INT 8 illiterate drunken dwarf battlerager to hit things with a big hammer. If he didn't want that he shouldn't have allowed my PC.
I guess if the adventure has such a puzzle (and I just ran a Paizo one that did) then (a)
players can solve it if they like/can (b) if not, PCs can roll INT checks to solve it.

 

[Valador]

I know it's easy to house rule, but I wish D&D point buy started with base scores of 10 like PF rather than 8

 

[Shendorion]

I still don't understand the motivation to tell players how they must express their low stats. What purpose does it serve? Are we trying to get people to play the character they rolled, rather than the one they imagined? That's not the sort of D&D I ever want to play.

The purpose of stats is to limit the success of each character in a general area of pursuits in the game world. It's not the "how;" it's the "how much." They're a measure of the character's ability to affect a desired outcome in the game world against opposition from the environment, other creatures, their own limitations and the laws of nature and magic (insofar as those are discrete in your campaign). Telling a player how those scores must be expressed in their character's personality is tyrannical, and contrary to the spirit of pretend play that this system is designed to enable.

If you restrict INT to broad spectrum deficiency, you're limiting the variety of people who can exist in your game world. You're precluding the possibility that brilliance can come to nothing. You're ignoring the fact that a very specific weakness can cause a person who is otherwise gifted to be outperformed by someone whose aptitudes, while lower overall, are more evenly distributed. I don't see what good can come of it.

 

[iserith]

Where I disagree here is that while the mental stats admittedly would have a larger impact on that than the physical, I feel like there's so much more to your character than your stats. There's an entire chapter in 5e on character backgrounds with motivations and histories and personality. That's where I think roleplaying needs to come from and tie to, not just how much int you have. And in that light, I feel like all of the stats should ultimately be mostly unrelated to any actual roleplaying because your levels of intelligence, wisdom, and charisma are so much less important than who your character is. The Sage background doesn't have an intelligence requirement. You can be a Soldier without any significant strength. You can have 8 int and still have a bunch of witty quips memorized to pass out as needed. Just because you have 8 strength doesn't mean you don't want to grab and pummel the man who killed your family. Your attributes are all pointless when compared to true character motivations and training.

I agree. Background and the related personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws are a far more effective means by which to make decisions for a character. There's also a concrete mechanic for rewarding playing to those elements of characterization. Of course, I'm all for players staking out how they think their Intelligence score influences their decision-making. I'm not for the DM mandating it through a backdoor use of ability checks when they think an idea is just too good for the given character to have imagined.