Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8470259" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I would slightly quibble with this.I think that there are several issues going on here that are only being addressed obliquely. Given I don't particularly care to take sides, I will outline them as I see them:A. The "dump stat" problem. It's not enough to say that there might be an issue with "dumping" intelligence in 5e; instead, I think it is more correct to say that 5e incentivizes dumping intelligence to an extent we have not otherwise seen. Simply putt, there are the two "god stats" (Dex, Cha). Then there is the "everyone can use it" stat (Con). Then there's wisdom, which, at a minimum, people like for the passive perception and because it's one of the primary saves. That leaves only two dump stats for most players- intelligence and strength. As strength has real mechanical effects, and, for the most part, intelligence doesn't, it becomes an easy choice. In other words, unless you're a wizard, wizard-adjacent (like EK or AT), or a very niche case (Mastermind Rogue, for example), intelligence is always going to be the dump stat. Which means that if you allow people to choose to have low intelligences with absolutely no consequences for that choice, then they will always choose to take the low intelligence and say, "But I'm naturally cunning and a good tactician!" Or come up with other reasons to justify playing the character the same way that they play their 18 intelligence character. There are innumerable threads on this.So for mixed groups in which this is a problem, there are usually only four solutions:1. A table agreement that you can't dump intelligence.2. A table agreement that you will appropriately play (depending on table norms) the intelligence.3. House rules that make intelligence more valuable.3. The DM, with extreme prejudice, employing tactics that target intelligence and intelligence saves until (1) and/or (2) and/or 3 happens. "Hey look kids! Big Ben! Parliament! An intellect devourer!" B. The "role playing" vs. "roll playing" debate. This is now more than 40 years old, and I don't think we will get very far in this more recent iteration. I do think that there is an interesting conversation to be had about the appropriate boundaries regarding roleplaying (similar to what we have seen with acting), but I do not think that the way that this thread has presented itself makes it an ideal topid to explore that discussion.I would say that most tables I have played at that have been heavy into "role playing" to tend to incorporate the physical abilities into the character conception, and that we have the same divide. In other words, people who aren't taking the physical abilities into account for RPing say, "Look, we don't do this for the physical abilities, so why should we for the mental ones!" While the people who do it for the mental ones say, "Look, we do it for the physical abilities, so of course we do it for the mental ones!"Two ships passing in the night.</blockquote>

Verification