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

[DND_Reborn]

I see the disconnect lying with how the stat is distributed against these three pillars. INT 6 means "acuity 6, recall 6, reasoning 6". Sure you can envision a character raised in the woods and for some reason having nothing to recall at all and no need to recall anything in his education, so he never trained to it. I'd say it's OK, but it would be "acuity 10, recall 2, reasoning 10" to make it 6ish INT. I'd probably want this character to be INT 10 and take a flaw of a -4 penatly to knowledge skills as part of a custom background (balanced by other things). Other would say that the -2 to knowledge skill (the mechanical parts) are enough to reflect the three pillars of intelligence, and if you're not going to roll the other ones they can be roleplayed freely. Different takes, I guess, as others would want all three aspects of the INT stat given equal importance, whether through rolling a skill or roleplay (and a third group wanting to roll everything anyway, including player-solved puzzles).

I remember back in 2E once we actually broke down abilities into 3 "components", each ranging from 1-6, so the total of your components was your ability score. An example would be Ug INT 6 might be acuity 2, recall 1, reasoning 3. FWIW, 3-4 was "average" for a component. Such a PC might be able to solve a puzzle (reasoning 3), but as you suggest have horrible recall and weak acuity.

But since 5E doesn't break things down this much, a INT 6 IMO would overall be "weak" and if the player puts such a low score in INT, the PC should be played to reflect that score. I am NOT saying the PC needs to be played like a complete idiot or anything, but the "role-playing" should be embraced by the player to make the character outstanding. Weaknesses can be strengths in other ways.

 

[Mordhau]

If you point was that you suggested a rule change to replace the ill-defined INT stat with a much clearer EDU stat from CoC or a Memory stat maybe, then it would let you roleplay Ug as a smart yet ignorant half-orc without problem. This is, however, not what I got from your earlier attempts, despite you thinking it was very clear. From the others' answers, I guess I wasn't the only one not to understand you proposed an actual change ; I thought you tried to explain what INT meant right now and how it was possible to play it within the current framework for INT. Did I understand your point? (I am really not sure because we apparently have great trouble communicating).

I didn't suggest a rules change. I suggested a change of interpretation. No rules are changed.

It is possible to play with a different interpetation of Int in the current framework. But if you have a different interpretation you only need to be consistent with the new interpration, not the old one.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Imagine if we interpret Int to mean your level of formal education and knowledge.

You can certainly say this in your game if you want... but in my games such things as formal education and knowledge is represented partly by INT but mostly by proficiency in skills such as Arcana, Nature, Medicine, etc.

FWIW, I am not saying you can't reinterpret what INT means in your game, just that isn't what it means in 5E as written IMO. I don't want INT 6 Ug routinely solving puzzles because Ug's player is a genius or loves puzzles and can solve them easily. 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?

 

[Mordhau]

You can certainly say this in your game if you want... but in my games such things as formal education and knowledge is represented partly by INT but mostly by proficiency in skills such as Arcana, Nature, Medicine, etc.

FWIW, I am not saying you can't reinterpret what INT means in your game, just that isn't what it means in 5E as written IMO. I don't want INT 6 Ug routinely solving puzzles because Ug's player is a genius or loves puzzles and can solve them easily. 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?

To see if you succeed when you roll the dice to try and do something governed by those scores. Eg. roll "History".

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Mordhau

Ok, given your last post I think I see part of the issue is a measure of what is considered "weak" or, in the case of INT, "stupid".

So, let's say Ug with INT 6 doesn't mean he is "stupid", but perhaps absent-minded (like many brilliant people LOL), a slow-and-deliberate thinker, a half-orc who thoroughly examines everything and processes it step-by-step before acting.

Such a PC with a -2 INT modifier might have a hard time thinking under the stressful conditions of a timed puzzle or in combat. Yes, an INT 6 PC could be a wizard whose spells aren't as "strong" because his casting isn't quite as perfect as others.

A lower INT could simply exaggerate these qualities in the PC to a greater extreme, making them not as effective at applying their Intelligence when needed (e.g. an ability check).

You might even see a PC with INT 3 as not "stupid", but an extreme case of such traits that makes the application of their Intelligence as simply less effective than a PC with INT 10.

If I am on the right track and that is your interpretation, then cool--glad it works for you, but that just isn't how I interpret them.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It isn't "hard to grasp" I just don't agree with you. (maybe...?)

View attachment 147423
So, Ug has an INT 6: what does that mean in terms in of mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason?

This is a very good question. In mechanical terms, it means 6 INT Ug is 10% less capable than average when it comes to mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason. Some people in the thread want that to be role played like it is dramatically and noticeably lower than average. Others want it to be played however the player wants it to be played. Either way, most people don't want it to be played as a negative stereotype. In the end, this becomes an argument about metagaming, IMO. Those that care about it are going to have compliant players so it just works at their table - or else it's possibly the dreaded: "Your character wouldn't do/say/think that." Or, more likely with a little less active policing, just gently interrupting game flow once in a while to ask the player how their character would do/say/think something. This latter scenario could actually be beneficial in that it gives the player an opportunity to share something about their character with the table.

And is Ug solving the puzzle, or Ug's player? How smart is Ug's player compared to INT 6 Ug? How did Ug solve it?
Did the DM call for an Intelligence check, and only Ug beat the DC? Or did the DM present the player's with a puzzle and Ug's player solved it?

Don't want players solving puzzles in your game using their own noggins b/c their PC has low INT? One answer is to police the roleplaying based on stats. Another is to avoid putting this problematic challenge in your game to start with. Yet another answer is to, like The Bad News Bears II, let them play - give the players and PCs their due and move on to the next challenge.

In the end, the mechanics will often contribute to determining success and failure at the table if you create challenges that require mechanical resolution with meaningful consequences of failure.

In my games I've had the situation where players couldn't solve a puzzle, so I allowed them to roll for their PCs against a DC 15 (or whatever). We've had INT 18 characters roll low, failing, and INT 10 characters roll high, succeeding. How is this? Simple, that PC might have encountered sometime similar in the past or just had a moment of brilliant insight.

Yes - since the dice can be cruel or kind on any given roll, be ready to be flexible in how you let the fiction explain how things turned out. It's a fantasy world after all and you can explain most anything in a good faith way if you so desire.

I haven't read the entire thread (and at 35 pages I am not going to), so all of this might have already been addressed by yourself and others.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is a very good question. In mechanical terms, it means 6 INT Ug is 10% less capable than average when it comes to mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason. Some people in the thread want that to be role played like it is dramatically and noticeably lower than average. Others want it to be played however the player wants it to be played. Either way, most people don't want it to be played as a negative stereotype. In the end, this becomes an argument about metagaming, IMO. Those that care about it are going to have compliant players so it just works at their table - or else it's possibly the dreaded: "Your character wouldn't do/say/think that." Or, more likely with a little less active policing, just gently interrupting game flow once in a while to ask the player how their character would do/say/think something. This latter scenario could actually be beneficial in that it gives the player an opportunity to share something about their character with the table.

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.

 

[Mordhau]

@Mordhau

Ok, given your last post I think I see part of the issue is a measure of what is considered "weak" or, in the case of INT, "stupid".

So, let's say Ug with INT 6 doesn't mean he is "stupid", but perhaps absent-minded (like many brilliant people LOL), a slow-and-deliberate thinker, a half-orc who thoroughly examines everything and processes it step-by-step before acting.

Such a PC with a -2 INT modifier might have a hard time thinking under the stressful conditions of a timed puzzle or in combat. Yes, an INT 6 PC could be a wizard whose spells aren't as "strong" because his casting isn't quite as perfect as others.

A lower INT could simply exaggerate these qualities in the PC to a greater extreme, making them not as effective at applying their Intelligence when needed (e.g. an ability check).

You might even see a PC with INT 3 as not "stupid", but an extreme case of such traits that makes the application of their Intelligence as simply less effective than a PC with INT 10.

If I am on the right track and that is your interpretation, then cool--glad it works for you, but that just isn't how I interpret them.

No. I'm saying it's possible and not particularly inconsistent with how the game actually plays for Int to basically mean "Knowledge".

The vast majority of the time when non wizards roll Int, it's to see if they know something.

A -2 modifier mostly means 10% less likely to know something.

This also explains very well (better than the default interpration) why you get high Int barbarians - they are uneducated pretty much by definition.

Ug doesn't solve the puzzle despite his low Int. He solves the puzzle because it has no connection at all to his low Int. (Unless the GM can't be bothered to have the players solve it and just calls for an Intelligence roll - in which case you can just say that part of the wizard's education involved the theory of codes, puzzles and enigmas - but I tend to be of the opinion that basic intelligence rolls to see if a character can do something are pretty bad practice anyway.)

The way the game works now, it's a pretty big sacrifice for a lot of classes to put a 16 in intelligence. Given that, I think it would be pretty much unheard of to put a 16 in Intelligence and not take some kind of skills that indicate a formal education (History, Religion, nature etc).

The very smart character who is not educated is basically a type of character that doesn't really exist in D&D by the default interpration.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No. I'm saying it's possible and not particularly inconsistent with how the game actually plays for Int to basically mean "Knowledge".

Fair enough, then we can stop discussing it as far as I am concerned. INT in 5E is not "knowledge" as written, it is a combination of things and (as far as I know) always has been. You can interpret it that way, but that isn't what it is IMO.

Best of luck and happy gaming!

 

[BB Shockwave]

When you play 'stupid' characters are you are saying that there are stupid people and then you are imitating those people.

The idea of 'stupid' and 'smart' is rooted in ableism.

Don't use stats as an excuse. Having an 8 Int means (basically) that the character is slightly worse at memorizing facts than an average human.

Do have traits and behaviours which hinder the character (if you want).

Maybe they are not very knowledgeable.

Maybe they don't pay attention much of the time.

Maybe they engage in risky behaviour and think rashly.

Maybe they lack confidence because they have been called 'stupid' their whole lives.

Maybe they find themselves in a culture which is very different than their own and they struggle to adapt. Their common isn't very good and the way they view the world is different than those around them.

There are lots of possibilities to create interesting characters rather than just a walking insult and punching bag.

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.