D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think having an intelligence of 8 means you are of average intelligence - your everyday human on Earth today. Most humans would have an intelligence score of 8-10. A Wizard with an intelligence of 16-18 is basically considered a genius. Scores above 20 are something that Ancient Dragons, powerful Celestials and Fiends have.
I think your character can be played normally with an intelligence score of 8. If it would go below that to say, 6, due to a feeblemind spell, then maybe you can act talk like the cartoon Dinobots ("Me Grimlock smash!") and not know basic facts.
An intelligence of 4-5 is though, barely above those of semi-intelligent beasts. Primitive creatures who only exist to feed and other base needs are like that. For example, a Ghoul could be capable of basic cunning but would be purely motivated by hunger. If your character ever gets their intelligence reduced to that level, they would go basically feral - like a child who was raised by wolves in the wild.

This depends on the meaning you assign to the distribution of stats, something that is very difficult to make sense of. 3-18 is one set of results from creating a character. We've been told that the character creating process isn't representative of "regular people" but only of heroes. All humans commoners, thugs, acolytes... have INT 10. That's a wide array of individual differences lumped into a single point range. It works also for any ability. So every is STR 10, from a man working in a rice field all day and a woman serving tea at the samurai's house alike: the difference between them isn't wide enough to warrant a single point of difference. Then you've the PCs, with tremendous capability to differ from the norm. Even being INT 14 may be supergenious level, for what we know: the difference with humans is as wide as the difference between average humans and an ape. Yet for some reason, a STR 14 human isn't able to break a temples' pillar and kill thousands of Phillistines inside ; I blame a bia against martial classes. The X% better than stat 10 only applies when a roll is needed, which is determined narratively and not with a simulationist intent : if a INT 10 character tried to solve a jigsaw puzzle quicker than an ape, I wouldn't ask for a roll [tbh I have no idea of a real ape jigsaw puzzle solving ability, one can replace that species with a dog if needed].

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting point.

I should expound that INT 8 (the lowest a PC will usually begin with IME) is by no means "stupid", it is slightly below "average" (whatever that means to you). What I object to is a brilliant, super intelligent player playing their INT 8 PC was if it had an INT 18. If they want to play it as basically average (it is close enough IMO) then no issue, it is when they go well beyond what the PC should be capable of on a consistent basis that I have objections.

Who decides what “playing a character as if it had an INT 18” looks like?

For me, an INT 18 just means a +4 on rolls to resolve checks involving mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason when they could succeed or fail and have meaningful stakes. But if one sets expectations around how certain ability scores should be roleplayed, I would hope one would have some kind of standard by which to judge that roleplaying. Otherwise you’re just asking your players to guess what you think an INT 18 looks like and reprimanding them for roleplaying wrong when they miss the mark.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Interesting point.

I should expound that INT 8 (the lowest a PC will usually begin with IME) is by no means "stupid", it is slightly below "average" (whatever that means to you). What I object to is a brilliant, super intelligent player playing their INT 8 PC was if it had an INT 18. If they want to play it as basically average (it is close enough IMO) then no issue, it is when they go well beyond what the PC should be capable of on a consistent basis that I have objections.

It goes without saying that even a "brilliant, super intelligent player" with an INT 8 PC must subtract 1 from INT rolls - vs adding 4 for an INT 18 PC - when rolls are required. No way around it. Otherwise, what mechanical problem, if any, does your hypothetical situation present? Further, what is the definition of an INT 18 PC in 5e? Is there a solid one (besides 20% better than average at mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason)? How must a player, in your opinion, role play a PC who is 20% better than average mechanically?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Who decides what “playing a character as if it had an INT 18” looks like?

For me, an INT 18 just means a +4 on rolls to resolve checks involving mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason when they could succeed or fail and have meaningful stakes. But if one sets expectations around how certain ability scores should be roleplayed, I would hope one would have some kind of standard by which to judge that roleplaying. Otherwise you’re just asking your players to guess what you think an INT 18 looks like and reprimanding them for roleplaying wrong when they miss the mark.

Why, I do, of course!

Seriously, though, this is based on prior versions of D&D where an INT 18 is already established as a genius-level intelligence. True, 5E doesn't make this distinction, but for myself I like keeping it. But this can also work in the player's favor. Some of the people I've played with were not terribly bright, but their PCs had INT 16 or better. In such cases, if the player can't think of something or figure it out, I allow them to roll because I see their PC as being "smarter" due to the high INT score.

As far as "role-playing" goes, perhaps that was a poor choice of words on my part. I don't necessarily mean personality or such, even an average intelligence person can seem smarter if they want. It is more about the results of the non-mechanics, such as the aforementioned puzzles, where the players get the challenge instead of a roll. But sometimes it does screw with the mechanics as well. For example, I might call for a DC 20 Intelligence (Investigation) check. One PC has INT 8, no proficiency in Investigation, but the player "figures it out" in a scenario where the PC cannot do it, even if the roll was a 20. In such instances I have to reign the player in a bit because they are "over playing" what should be a "weaker" score.

Honestly, I've never had any issues with playing this way (or at least no one has ever spoken out against it) because the way I use INT and other ability scores makes sense to the groups I've been in. shrug

It goes without saying that even a "brilliant, super intelligent player" with an INT 8 PC must subtract 1 from INT rolls - vs adding 4 for an INT 18 PC - when rolls are required. No way around it. Otherwise, what mechanical problem, if any, does your hypothetical situation present? Further, what is the definition of an INT 18 PC in 5e? Is there a solid one (besides 20% better than average at mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason)? How must a player, in your opinion, role play a PC who is 20% better than average mechanically?

See the above.

 

[aco175]

I tend to view puzzles as a bit different since you are asking the players. If all the players are average or slightly more or less, then the low-Int PC and the high-Int PC are both played by normal players. I just let all the players think about it. Maybe the 18 Int mage is as smart as two players, or three- so let the players all come up with solutions. I could justify it by saying that the 8Int PC comes up with some sort of clue that the 18Int PC follows up on with the right answer.

I also tend to give a clue with a roll after a couple minutes if the players are having a time. I also try to factor the DM average Int in making puzzles and such.

 

[ad_hoc]

Who decides what “playing a character as if it had an INT 18” looks like?

For me, an INT 18 just means a +4 on rolls to resolve checks involving mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason when they could succeed or fail and have meaningful stakes. But if one sets expectations around how certain ability scores should be roleplayed, I would hope one would have some kind of standard by which to judge that roleplaying. Otherwise you’re just asking your players to guess what you think an INT 18 looks like and reprimanding them for roleplaying wrong when they miss the mark.

Yeah, if the idea is to create some sort of standard of what a character's personality must be like if they have low mental stats then high mental stats should also be enforced.

Will the DM step in and tell a player that no a character with Int 20 or Cha 20 would not act that way you can't do that?

Part of the point of this thread is that people don't actually know what Int 8 or Int 20 or whatever means for who a character is.

Instead we bring our own biases and judgments and declare that Int 8 means this and should be roleplayed this way (some even going so far to say they will punish players for not playing the way they want them to).

The only sensible solution is to have the scores mean what they mean in the game. Have the scores do the game effects that they have and let those game effects influence the narrative.

This very judgment of what Int 8 should be is ableist. We don't need to be talking about someone with severe cognitive impairments to be talking about ableism. It's the very idea that intelligence can be given a score and that score dictates who that person is and what they are capable of. This is why the concept we have of intelligence is flawed from the start.

D&D reinforces this conception of intelligence which is harmful and limiting.

We likely won't be seeing intelligence renamed but we can at least think of it differently.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Why, I do, of course!

Seriously, though, this is based on prior versions of D&D where an INT 18 is already established as a genius-level intelligence. True, 5E doesn't make this distinction, but for myself I like keeping it. But this can also work in the player's favor. Some of the people I've played with were not terribly bright, but their PCs had INT 16 or better. In such cases, if the player can't think of something or figure it out, I allow them to roll because I see their PC as being "smarter" due to the high INT score.

Thank you for the refreshingly honest answer - particularly the bolded bit which some are unwilling/unable to acknowledge and instead use... interesting interpretations to defend it as 5e RAW.

As far as "role-playing" goes, perhaps that was a poor choice of words on my part. I don't necessarily mean personality or such, even an average intelligence person can seem smarter if they want. It is more about the results of the non-mechanics, such as the aforementioned puzzles, where the players get the challenge instead of a roll. But sometimes it does screw with the mechanics as well. For example, I might call for a DC 20 Intelligence (Investigation) check. One PC has INT 8, no proficiency in Investigation, but the player "figures it out" in a scenario where the PC cannot do it, even if the roll was a 20. In such instances I have to reign the player in a bit because they are "over playing" what should be a "weaker" score.

As I'm sure you are aware, if a player states an approach to solving a problem that just works, a DM can grant auto-success for the PC without a roll in 5e. I say move along to the next challenge rather than getting too caught up in the "mechanics won't allow such a thing" consternation. YMMV.

Honestly, I've never had any issues with playing this way (or at least no one has ever spoken out against it) because the way I use INT and other ability scores makes sense to the groups I've been in. shrug

See the above.

I'm glad you have fun with it at your table!

 

[Voadam]

If I allow the player to do things the PCs really (sort of) shouldn't (again, routinely), then what is the point of the mental ability scores?

For the game mechanics tied to them.

 

[Voadam]

This very judgment of what Int 8 should be is ableist. We don't need to be talking about someone with severe cognitive impairments to be talking about ableism. It's the very idea that intelligence can be given a score and that score dictates who that person is and what they are capable of. This is why the concept we have of intelligence is flawed from the start.

The inherency of intelligence in an individual seems to be a completely separate issue from ableism.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, if the idea is to create some sort of standard of what a character's personality must be like if they have low mental stats then high mental stats should also be enforced.

Will the DM step in and tell a player that no a character with Int 20 or Cha 20 would not act that way you can't do that?

Part of the point of this thread is that people don't actually know what Int 8 or Int 20 or whatever means for who a character is.

Instead we bring our own biases and judgments and declare that Int 8 means this and should be roleplayed this way (some even going so far to say they will punish players for not playing the way they want them to).

The only sensible solution is to have the scores mean what they mean in the game. Have the scores do the game effects that they have and let those game effects influence the narrative.

This very judgment of what Int 8 should be is ableist. We don't need to be talking about someone with severe cognitive impairments to be talking about ableism. It's the very idea that intelligence can be given a score and that score dictates who that person is and what they are capable of. This is why the concept we have of intelligence is flawed from the start.

D&D reinforces this conception of intelligence which is harmful and limiting.

We likely won't be seeing intelligence renamed but we can at least think of it differently.

All I can say is that I disagree. In the real world we may not measure intelligence accurately, we don't understand it fully, but it is as real as anything. It's not harmful to acknowledge reality nor is anyone more or less worthy because of their intelligence.

Whether int matters in game is a choice that should be left up to the group. Don't ridicule people? Cool. Pretend that people aren't different with different strengths and weaknesses? You lost me.