D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Guest 6801328]

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.

The "impingement on other narratives" only occurs in extreme edge cases, with characters more or less explicitly designed to make Eloelle unplayable, and I've already explained how I would modify Eloelle's rp in the face of such obvious hostility.

As for this part that you quoted:

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

Uh, yeah. Which part of that don't you understand? 100.0% of the stuff that breaks the "rules" is in the narrative stream, which doesn't affect mechanics and therefore doesn't break the rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

We may be on to something here. Eloelle, as I'm sure you realize, is not a real person. Therefore she doesn't believe anything.

What exactly do you mean by "what she believes is the truth"?

 

[BoldItalic]

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

People who make stuff up (like you and me) are scary. Expecially to people to whom fiction is tantamount to lying and their inner parent strongly disapproves of that.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

This is not surprising. Most people incorrectly think things like this are just fluff. What you have done is add cards to the components your sorcerer uses to cast his spells. That's great, and I would approve such a change, but in my experience, many people who want to add cards to the casting of the spell because it's cool, get upset when they can't cast spells when those cards are taken away.

People need to fully consider what they think is just fluff, because there are often mechanical consequences.

 

[Maxperson]

We may be on to something here. Eloelle, as I'm sure you realize, is not a real person. Therefore she doesn't believe anything.

Sorry, I was assuming you were playing the role of Eloelle and were therefore talking about what she the character knows when you said, "Eloelle knows the answer to the riddle."

I'm sure you realize that the game targets PCs with spells and effects and not the player, so it's the PC, not the player who has to tell the truth.

 

[Guest 6801328]

but in my experience, many people who want to add cards to the casting of the spell because it's cool, get upset when they can't cast spells when those cards are taken away.

That may very well be true, and I can understand being wary of changes that might give the illusion of munchkin empowerment, but the fear of that happening is a very different argument than you've been making.

People need to fully consider what they think is just fluff, because there are often mechanical consequences.

No, there are never mechanical consequences of fluff. Not unless the DM allows it. And then it's a house rule.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sorry, I was assuming you were playing the role of Eloelle and were therefore talking about what she the character knows when you said, "Eloelle knows the answer to the riddle."

I'm sure you realize that the game targets PCs with spells and effects and not the player, so it's the PC, not the player who has to tell the truth.

I think you are missing the point of the question, but I'm my phone at the airport and will have to elaborate later.

 

[Maxperson]

That may very well be true, and I can understand being wary of changes that might give the illusion of munchkin empowerment, but the fear of that happening is a very different argument than you've been making.

No, there are never mechanical consequences of fluff. Not unless the DM allows it. And then it's a house rule.

Then you acknowledge that the sorcerer you described is not just fluff, but deals with mechanics. Loss of spellcasting when the cards are taken is a mechanical thing.

 

[TwoSix]

Man, it's frustrating to know this thread is active but none of the latest posts are loading. Testing to see if I can see my own post.

 

[BoldItalic]

Man, it's frustrating to know this thread is active but none of the latest posts are loading. Testing to see if I can see my own post.

I think the forum software is borked. It seems to miscount posts and invent pages at the end that are inaccessible because there aren't actually any posts on them. I speculate that it's related to the change of 'ignore' functionality.