D&D 5E 5th edition monks

[DND_Reborn]

Surely 8 Int is also just...the low end of average. Not even enough difference to be noticeable under any circumstances other than detailed testing of intellectual capability. 8 Int is still someone who graduates high school without any particular trouble.

I agree an INT 8 could finish high school but IMO it wouldn't be the low end of average. I think they might have a bit more struggle along the way than an INT 10 or 12.

If you follow my belief that each +/- 1 represents a standard deviation, than an I.Q. 71-85 would have an INT 8-9. This was supposed to be the I.Q. of Forrest Gump who had a I.Q. 75 IIRC. So, fully capable of doing what nearly everyone else can do, even if there might be some times of struggle or taking more time, etc.

All that being said, I think a bigger part is the fact that INT represents an ability. A lower INT could simply be someone who is actually smart, but forgetful. Or with a great memory, but not as clever as most. Or perhaps some other aspect of their INT is severely lacking while others are a bit better than normal? That is the problem since each ability score represents often 3 or more aspects... you just don't know which is affected and such. Of course, this also means you can interpret your dump stats if you have one in whatever manner you wish, but mechanically it is all the same.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not saying PCs should use a different scale (though I am a proponent of handwaving NPCs down to what matters instead of worrying about how I would stat them with PC rules), but rather that we re-contextualize the scale so that 8 is more the average.

Still, even if the average at every stat is 10, you don't answer my question: how much dumber than average 10 is someone with an 8 in INT? I don't think you have to role-play a complete moron to have an 8 INT. Just don't bother learning any of the NPCs and places names and it'll come naturally

I don't mind the PCs are exceptional approach. I don't even think commoners need stats of any kind, to be honest. To me, the stats of a PC are more about how they relate to the things they will interact with....usually monsters and other enemies and obstacles.

I can't see how an 8 would be that far from what is typical. If a commoner has 10s in everything, then very often they'll actually be better at something than a PC. Which may be fine in some cases, but in others would be odd.

It's funny because in this (and most, I believe) edition the actual stat score doesn't mean anything. What really matters is the modifier. So looking at it that way, we're talking about a 9 point scale, which means each point covers a bigger range. That's why there's no mechanical difference between a 10 and an 11, or a 16 and a 17. But we'd probably all agree that someone with a 17 Strength is stronger than someone with a 16 Strength. Okay....but how so?

Honestly, the scores being somewhere between 3 and 18+ seems like a relic from old editions that they just can't seem to let go.

I mean, I could play an 8 int PC as myself and I'd be doing just fine. My mama always said, "Life is like a box of gnomes."

My main issue is that tradeoff thing, which, TBH, pops up in almost any RPG system that allows you to take a disadvantage and exchange it for some other advantage. Because then people try to shrug off the disadvantage, because it's really just about min/maxing or charop instead of seeing the ability scores as a way to describe the character. Which also seems to pop up more with a point-buy system than with rolls.

The best way to address this, and D&D only makes a passing attempt really, is to incentivize the drawback with an XP reward. So if the player really plays up the 8 Intelligence and makes it a meaningful drawback in play, then he receives XP. Other games do this to great effect. With 5E, the closest that's in there is gaining Inspiration by playing a Flaw or Bond.

 

[Undrave]

Honestly, the scores being somewhere between 3 and 18+ seems like a relic from old editions that they just can't seem to let go.

I totally agree.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's funny because in this (and most, I believe) edition the actual stat score doesn't mean anything. What really matters is the modifier.

Yep. A couple discussions have come up about going to just listing the modifier. For example, for point-buy your modifiers will total +4 to +7 before racial bonuses. So, I toyed with the idea of rolling a d4+3 (or maybe 2d4?) and arrange the modifiers as desired (up to +3) to meet the total you rolled. You can have one -1, but that is it.

Only a handful of features require or use the actual score, so adjusting for this wouldn't be too hard.

 

[Undrave]

Only a handful of features require or use the actual score, so adjusting for this wouldn't be too hard.

I think maybe carrying capacity and jumping distance? Is that it? You could just replace them with a table so you don't have to calculate anything.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think maybe carrying capacity and jumping distance? Is that it? You could just replace them with a table so you don't have to calculate anything.

Indomitable Might for Barbarians is another. I don't think in total there are more than 5 or 6 features or rules.

You don't even need a table, a reverse-calculation would work as well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Indomitable Might for Barbarians is another. I don't think in total there are more than 5 or 6 features or rules.

You don't even need a table, a reverse-calculation would work as well.

I’m surprised there are even that many, but now that you’ve mentioned them, it sounds right. Pretty easily modified to make then work with bonuses only, if you wanted, though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree an INT 8 could finish high school but IMO it wouldn't be the low end of average. I think they might have a bit more struggle along the way than an INT 10 or 12.

If you follow my belief that each +/- 1 represents a standard deviation, than an I.Q. 71-85 would have an INT 8-9. This was supposed to be the I.Q. of Forrest Gump who had a I.Q. 75 IIRC. So, fully capable of doing what nearly everyone else can do, even if there might be some times of struggle or taking more time, etc.

All that being said, I think a bigger part is the fact that INT represents an ability. A lower INT could simply be someone who is actually smart, but forgetful. Or with a great memory, but not as clever as most. Or perhaps some other aspect of their INT is severely lacking while others are a bit better than normal? That is the problem since each ability score represents often 3 or more aspects... you just don't know which is affected and such. Of course, this also means you can interpret your dump stats if you have one in whatever manner you wish, but mechanically it is all the same.

I think if Int 8 is IQ 75, there is no room for IQ just a bit below the average. Again, average is 10, not 12. So, either each number represents a bit of a range of RL values, or 8 isn’t that far from the average.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think if Int 8 is IQ 75, there is no room for IQ just a bit below the average. Again, average is 10, not 12. So, either each number represents a bit of a range of RL values, or 8 isn’t that far from the average.

Well, because WotC has gone with two points per modifier, things get a bit wonky IMO. While they consider 10 "average", technically it is 10.5 since both 10 and 11 are no modifier. So, really 10 is average, but below I.Q. 100. Really, anything between 86-114 would be represented by 10 or 11. Here's the idea:

So, an INT of 8 or 9 is below average, but still capable of fully functioning in normal situations. Getting into the I.Q. range of 56-70 or INT 6-7 is where you would have difficulty.

Also, FWIW, most I.Q. tests aren't designed to test scores much below 50 I.Q. And, of course, many individuals have I.Q. scores well above 175, which doesn't really translate since 5E caps scores normally at 20.

Obviously this is far from perfect, but gives a decent basis for someone who wants to think of the comparison between I.Q. and an Intelligence score. But...

This is an idea I've been using since the 1990's, even with 1E before that when a INT 17 was the point of "genius." But, since 5E turned the dynamic of ability scores to not just be natural ability, but also training in appropriate skills, it breaks down.

 

[Manchurian]

I have always kept the Ad&d 1st Monk And Upgrades And Use It In Later Editions.....Many Monk Orders And Some Like Clergy but I still Use That One As An Ancient Gothic Monk