D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TwoSix]

As for MostlyDM's restatement itself? Well, the assertion that you can divorce the description of Intelligence form the math that models it is very problematic. Words mean things. Going down that path allows someone to describe the darkness of night and giving bonuses to visual perception rolls. Or describing something as heavy and letting characters carry more mass the weaker they get.

That isn't something to worry about, assuming you trust your players not to push on the boundaries of genre fidelity.

 

[TwoSix]

What is a pert and why did you quit?

Dealing with people all the time.

 

[TwoSix]

By RAW that's not all intelligence means. RAW defines defines intelligence as...

Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall,
and the ability to reason.

Those are the things that need to be used in the descriptions to explain deficiencies, not descriptions of non-int stats.

So it's a house rule. Or is 5e no longer amenable to house ruling?

And like you quoted, Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason. And by reason of their psychological profile, all of those are negatively impacted in Elfcrusher's concept characters.

 

[Maxperson]

So it's a house rule. Or is 5e no longer amenable to house ruling?

A house rule is fine. Elfcrusher didn't come here to discuss house rules, though. At least his OP didn't say he was. Without it being a house rule discussion, it's a RAW discussion and by RAW his examples don't work.

And like you quoted, Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason. And by reason of their psychological profile, all of those are negatively impacted in Elfcrusher's concept characters.

What he described in his first example was charisma being negative and therefore int has a penalty, which is nonsensical. As Danny noted, two of his examples didn't even involve any negatives. They were positives that the PC was deciding not to use. The last example also didn't involve int in any way, but I can't recall it now.

The rule is that the int penalty is caused by a lack of mental acuity, accuracy of recall and the ability to reason, not that other stats cause those deficiencies, which in turn cause the penalty. A low charisma isn't going to cause any int deficiencies.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would argue that the stuff Max is talking about doesn't even qualify as "rules". Not every block of text in the PHB and DMG are rules; much of it is flavor, fluff, description, whatever you want to call it.

In the sections that describe what Int represents I don't see a single snippet that that looks like a rule.

And even if you do want to insist that these are some sort of abstract rules, let's look at them:

Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

And also:

An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.

Nowhere in those passages does it say what the relationship is between the Int score and those activities/skills/abilities. There is no "your Int score describes your innate ability in these areas" or "you are equally proficient in each of these things". It just implies that there is a relationship. So if I describe my Int score as meaning that my constant swooning over my beloved impinges my mental acuity, my accuracy of recall, and my ability to reason...that's still RAW.

Shocking, huh?

My own mental acuity, and more importantly my accuracy of recall, suggest that @Maxperson in particular is not going to budge one bit from his position, even in the face of this irrefutable logic.

 

[TwoSix]

What he described in his first example was charisma being negative and therefore int has a penalty, which is nonsensical. As Danny noted, two of his examples didn't even involve any negatives. They were positives that the PC was deciding not to use. The last example also didn't involve int in any way, but I can't recall it now.

If they aren't expressed as a positive in the gameplay, than it's immaterial. It doesn't matter what the character knows, it only matters what the character does. I know you disagree, but I simply don't care, because Elfcrusher is right. Your concept negates cool concepts and enables nothing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Your concept negates cool concepts and enables nothing.

This is the heart of it right here. I think Max and others are opposed because it conflicts with their long-held perception of what ability scores "mean". But there's absolutely zero impact on gameplay, and it opens up new roleplaying & storytelling possibilities. It's purely an aesthetic preference.

EDIT: I will also cede that maybe not all four of those ideas were good ones. I just sat down and whipped off the first four things I could think of. I was sort of hoping others would pick up the theme and riff off of it.

And did anybody get this reference?

​

 

[Maxperson]

If they aren't expressed as a positive in the gameplay, than it's immaterial. It doesn't matter what the character knows, it only matters what the character does. I know you disagree, but I simply don't care, because Elfcrusher is right. Your concept negates cool concepts and enables nothing.

He can't be right. What he is describing is not a low int. Let's take the love example. It's impossible for love to lower your intelligence. What it can do is keep you from using it. That means his genius has an appointment 18 int with a +4 bonus and a love circumstance penalty of say -7. The net is a negative bonus on international checks, but he's still a genius with a high int.

Nothing he described is a low int.

 

[TwoSix]

And did anybody get this reference?

View attachment 76042​

Sure, but I don't think anyone commented on it because it was a pretty obvious one. I didn't like it with that particular strip, so good call there.

I think there's a whole host of concepts that can be modeled if you don't take character creation as a lockstep "Ok, I'm a 0 level character with these innate abilities, what makes the most sense to take as my job/class?" It's something I was thinking about in the Clerics and Wisdom thread. Maybe high Wisdom doesn't mean you're a good cleric...maybe the blessing of your diety gives you a high Wisdom.

Once concept I was thinking of was a low-Dex high-Wis character who has a uncontrollable mild precognitive ability, where they keep seeing flashes of what might happen a few seconds in the future. It enhances perception, but it's a continual visual distraction that throws off their physical acuity. Hard to dodge a sword blow when you're seeing a vision of the sword hitting you.

 

[TwoSix]

He can't be right. What he is describing is not a low int. Let's take the love example. It's impossible for love to lower your intelligence. What it can do is keep you from using it. That means his genius has an appointment 18 int with a +4 bonus and a love circumstance penalty of say -7. The net is a negative bonus on international checks, but he's still a genius with a high int.

Nothing he described is a low int.

But that's terrible. If he has a +4 from Int and a -7 due to circumstances that are always applicable, just give him a 5 Int, and achieve the exact same result. Stats are not definitional. They exist only as a game mechanic. Your character concept is rooted only in the description you give for your character.