D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TwoSix]

None of us here have a 5 int. We understand what he is trying to do. The issue is that he doesn't want to admit that it's a house rule and he thinks 5e RAW allows what he is saying.

You have a pretty long row to hoe to get our camp to think that Fortune-in-the-Middle/disassociated/narrative mechanics aren't perfectly usable in 5e as written. We've had years of this same debate with the last edition, after all.

 

[Maxperson]

You have a pretty long row to hoe to get our camp to think that Fortune-in-the-Middle/disassociated/narrative mechanics aren't perfectly usable in 5e as written. We've had years of this same debate with the last edition, after all.

Yep. Mostly with people who refuse to acknowledge that rules as written mean what they say they do. The game rules say how to play the game, and nowhere does that include the style that Elfcrusher is arguing.

That doesn't mean that you can't play that way, or that it's bad if you do so. It does mean, though, that the rules don't back you up. It also means that you are house ruling every time your style runs in conflict with mechanics and those mechanics have to change to compensate.

By the way, I said "The issue is that he doesn't want to admit that it's a house rule and he thinks 5e RAW allows what he is saying.", not "The issue is that he doesn't want to admit that it's a house rule and he thinks 5e RAW isn't usable with his playstyle." There's a difference.

RAW does not allow what he is suggesting, but it is usable that way if you want to and are willing to house rule the mechanical conflicts that will inevitably come up.

 

[TwoSix]

That defies logic to an immense degree. I don't kill people and never will, but I assure that I can do it if a tried. I won't ever jump off tall buildings, but I absolutely can do it. The same applies to PCs unless you are playing in some bizarro world fantasy where PCs literally can't do anything that they've never done before.

The game doesn't have to be a simulator, where you walk around testing your capabilities. Tabletop games have evolved past that need, although plenty of people still play that way.

Also, if a strength 7 pixie were trying to force your burly hobgoblin PC off of a cliff to his death, your PC would use his full 18 strength body to resist. He wouldn't need his arm for that, and he'd have a huge advantage over that pixie with a REAL 7 strength.

And that's how I would narrate it if I won. If I lost, i would narrate how the pixie blinded him with some pixie dust, and then yanked on his boot until he toppled, and he was unable to hang on to the edge of the ledge because of his bad arm.

If I take a 7 Str, all I'm signaling is that I expect my PC to do poorly on tasks that are typically associated with Strength. Think of the stats as being fairly similar to Fate Accelerated's approaches.

Not me. 5e is doing that very nicely. I'm just explaining the rules to people. If you(general you) want to house rule things to be different, then I have no objection. You have acknowledged the house rule, but [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has not.

Whether it's a house rule or not is fairly immaterial. It's far more important to me to know if people are inclusive of different approaches or believe their approach is the only correct one. Since you've already indicated you wouldn't let me play a concept I've played for 10+ sessions and enjoyed, I know where I stand in my judgment.

 

[Maxperson]

The game doesn't have to be a simulator, where you walk around testing your capabilities. Tabletop games have evolved past that need, although plenty of people still play that way.

Yes, but a high degree of realism still exists in D&D as written. I'm not asking for it to be a real life simulator, but neither is it the complete anti-simulator you want it to be.......at least not by RAW.

And that's how I would narrate it if I won. If I lost, i would narrate how the pixie blinded him with some pixie dust, and then yanked on his boot until he toppled, and he was unable to hang on to the edge of the ledge because of his bad arm.

If I take a 7 Str, all I'm signaling is that I expect my PC to do poorly on tasks that are typically associated with Strength. Think of the stats as being fairly similar to Fate Accelerated's approaches.

That isn't how the game works, though. 5e D&D uses a high strength as a high strength, not a low one. It uses a low strength as a low strength, not a high one. You wan't to mix up the mechanics by having a high strength = a low one just because you hurt your arm and the game doesn't back that up. Even if your character doesn't choose to drag the max he could with his 18 strength, he is still capable of doing so. RAW doesn't let you lower his strength to 7 without also reducing that capability and everything else associated with a high strength.

Removing all of those mechanical abilities and still describing the PC as burly and strong is absurd. The description doesn't match the mechanics, and descriptions matching the mechanics is extremely important. The first time a description doesn't match the mechanic without a different mechanic explaining it, nothing can be trusted in the game. I can't trust a tree to be wood. I can't trust a sword to cut. I can't trust the ground to be dirt and rock. Anything could literally be anything else.

Whether it's a house rule or not is fairly immaterial. It's far more important to me to know if people are inclusive of different approaches or believe their approach is the only correct one. Since you've already indicated you wouldn't let me play a concept I've played for 10+ sessions and enjoyed, I know where I stand in my judgment.

False Dichotomy friend. I'm not going to let you play it in MY game, but I'm all for you having fun with it in yours. Your style would be disruptive in my game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

None of us here have a 5 int. We understand what he is trying to do. The issue is that he doesn't want to admit that it's a house rule and he thinks 5e RAW allows what he is saying.

There is no change in rules required. The rules don't dictate how you are allowed to narrate the mechanics, as long as you don't change the result of the mechanics.

If you think that Eloelle knows the answer to the riddle then YOU are using a house rule, because according to my PHB if she failed the Int check it means she didn't solve the riddle. I don't care if Eloelle's player narrates that she just happens to have the answer to that particular riddle tattooed on her left buttock ("Sorry...did I not mention that when I was describing my character?")...if she failed the roll then she doesn't know the answer.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER! THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY CLAIM. I AM USING IT TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT YOU SEEM TO BE CLAIMING.

So if you are saying that Eloelle knows the answer then you have made up a house rule. It says something like "Eloelle gets to turn failed rolls into successful rolls by invoking this story about her Patron". Thus:
1) When ZoT gets cast she will in fact know the answer to the Riddle so she'll have to give up that answer
2) Except that you've already established a house rule that Eloelle gets to override dice rolls, so she invokes her patron to resist the spell.

So whether you have a house rule or not, the net result is the same: Eloelle doesn't reveal the answer to the Riddle under the effects of ZoT.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no change in rules required. The rules don't dictate how you are allowed to narrate the mechanics, as long as you don't change the result of the mechanics.

If you think that Eloelle knows the answer to the riddle then YOU are using a house rule, because according to my PHB if she failed the Int check it means she didn't solve the riddle. I don't care if Eloelle's player narrates that she just happens to have the answer to that particular riddle tattooed on her left buttock ("Sorry...did I not mention that when I was describing my character?")...if she failed the roll then she doesn't know the answer.

If she believes that the knows the answer, she must truthfully give that answer, even if it is wrong. Zone of Truth is not God. It doesn't know everything and prevent her from saying a truth that is incorrect.

So if you are saying that Eloelle knows the answer then you have made up a house rule. It says something like "Eloelle gets to turn failed rolls into successful rolls by invoking this story about her Patron". Thus:
1) When ZoT gets cast she will in fact know the answer to the Riddle so she'll have to give up that answer
2) Except that you've already established a house rule that Eloelle gets to override dice rolls, so she invokes her patron to resist the spell.

So whether you have a house rule or not, the net result is the same: Eloelle doesn't reveal the answer to the Riddle under the effects of ZoT.

No. The net result is not the same. The net result of playing by the rules is that she answers the question with what she believes as the truth. The net result of what you claim is her lying and succeeding in a save that she failed.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Maxperson makes me pull my hair out with his stubborn insistence on believing things which are just completely illogical. It's sort of like talking to an anti-GMO zealot. But I think he honestly believes his position.

Then there's CosmicKid:

What the hell, man? It is Eloelle's "look at me, I'm too cool for natural language" 5-Int genius character concept that requires the other PCs to give her a pass whenever she lies to them, and you say it's Bruce's choices that are causing problems? Maliciously? Do you honestly have no other mode of dealing with people who don't think or act according to your expectations than to recast them as evil caricatures? This has got to be the third or fourth time I've called you out on this. And your only response is... to incorporate being called out into your caricature. I'm not sure whether that's more Kafkaesque or Helleresque, but it's pretty messed up either way.

Hmm... Kafkaesque. Definitely more Kafkaesque.

What I hear reading this is the class clown giving a smarmy and blatantly insincere "What did I do? I was just trying to help!" Hamlet was shining a stage-light on the barriers of communication that separate man from man. You are by your own admission "tailgating them with your high beams on". Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to dress up an act of passive-aggressive spite as a literary endeavor.

But since you've stated quite clearly that you think it is the case, you seem to be owning that this is indeed a childish way to respond. And if they're not trying to undermine you, and you act out anyway, doesn't that make you even more childish?

You're doing a perfectly fine job of that all by yourself.

I've been having trouble understanding the anger and hostility, and how my attempt to describe how a non-typical path of RP could enable some interesting (and hopefully entertaining) storytelling, and from CosmicKid it's just been a constant barrage of insults, and an assumption that I'm trying to dictate to other people how to play the game (when, if anything, this thread has been a few people trying to dictate to me how I can't play).

Really? Attempting to find an alternate interpretation of the Int ability is this threatening? Something else has got to be going on.

I really can't think of a better, more peaceful, more non-aggressive way of handling irresolvable table disagreement by simply not playing at that table. And somehow CosmicKid turns that into childish, self-absorbed, petulance. Maybe he's imagining temper tantrums and insults and nasty posts on Twitter or something. And I have to wonder, why would somebody read "I won't play at that table?" and automatically assume such things?

And then, realization. Ohhhhhh....right. Now I get it.

Bad on me for earlier admitting to my share of the sniping, and offering to try again, and then continuing in good faith even though the other party failed (and continues to fail) to acknowledge the same. Even after I said I was done, that it had gotten too toxic, I got dragged back into the mud pit.

Now I truly am done. This is what the /ignore list is for, right?

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson makes me pull my hair out with his stubborn insistence on believing things which are just completely illogical. It's sort of like talking to an anti-GMO zealot. But I think he honestly believes his position.

Yep! And the rules honestly back me up.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you think that Eloelle knows the answer to the riddle then YOU are using a house rule, because according to my PHB if she failed the Int check it means she didn't solve the riddle. I don't care if Eloelle's player narrates that she just happens to have the answer to that particular riddle tattooed on her left buttock ("Sorry...did I not mention that when I was describing my character?")...if she failed the roll then she doesn't know the answer.

YOU are the one houseruling. In absolutely clear language, you've posited several times it is merely a narrative difference that she knew the answer but her patron supernaturally prevented her from saying so even in a ZoT. OTOH, we have illustrated why- despite your insistence to the contrary- her ACTUAL but supernaturally obscured success is different from a failure; why this impinges on the narratives of other characters in the game; why this is a house rule.

Your own words:

Yes, but so what? In the narrative event stream Eloelle invokes mechanically illegal superpowers to both:
a) Solve the Riddle
b) Lie during ZoT

In the mechanical event stream Eloelle is bad at skill checks and saving throws, so she:
a) Fails to solve the riddle
b) Tells the truth about that during ZoT

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yep. Mostly with people who refuse to acknowledge that rules as written mean what they say they do. The game rules say how to play the game, and nowhere does that include the style that Elfcrusher is arguing.

Wait a second...so are you saying that the Sorcerer I mentioned who describes his spellcasting as throwing cards needs to have an explicit rule allowing him to describe it that way, and since I can't find something saying exactly that in the PHB, he's breaking the rules?