D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TheCosmicKid]

Try this experiment. Bookmark this post and make a note of its # number and what page we are on. Then set me to ignore. See what happens. (You can un-ignore me in your profile afterwards).

Yeah, I did that yesterday. Pretty definitely the block system is the cause of the problem.

Side note: the ignore list manager is in an unintuitive place.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Is there a reason you responded to my comment but ignored my question?

Probably, but I don't recall the question. I tend to only respond to posts that I find interesting or at least un-repetitive. If you would like to re-submit I will consider it.

I'm going to re-order some of your post to respond to things in a more logical order.

I would ask you to look at it this way (and it would be really awesome of you if you did);

When you read a document and it is prefaced by a definition of terms as are many technical, legal, or other documents, do you normally think "These are the definitions that are intended to be used for these words within this document?" or do you think "They probably intended me to swap out these definitions for ones that in the real world mean the exact opposite thing."

The former, of course. But these two things aren't parallel. Technical and legal documents tend not to be liberally sprinkled with colorful, evocative prose. Furthermore, legal definitions have specific, unambiguous language, in the form of a 1:1 correlations between terms and definitions. For example, a contract might read "John T. Smith, of 101 Pedantic Drive, herein referred to as The Client" or something like that.

So, does the "definition" of the Int score meet this criterion?

Here's one example:

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

So right there we have four separate things that Intelligence applies to. That doesn't rule it out as a definition. Our legal contract could say something like: "John T. Smith of 101 Pedantic Lane, Wiley E. Coyote of Eureka, Nevada, and/or Ulysses S. Grant of Grant's Tomb, herein referred to as The Client."

Is that an appropriate parallel? Well, we have to ask if there are there other things Int could refer to in the game. What about pattern recognition? Innate mathematical talent? Musical talent? Ability to visualize in 3D? Ability to estimate distances and volumes? How about inductive reasoning?

I hope you will agree that these things are also covered by Int, even though they're not explicitly listed. Which means that it's not a definition but merely a list of illustrative examples. Those are two very, very different things.

But maybe I am assuming too much. Maybe you do want to rule that Intelligence only applies to the items explicitly listed, and that if, for example, 3D visualization is required it's....well it's not listed on Wisdom or Charisma, either, so I guess you don't get any modifiers. I think that would be a little screwy, but if you do believe that then perhaps the text does meet the requirements for a formal definition...except that we then run into the problem that in the various places these references appear, the list changes. For example, the list above from the SRD is not the same as the list that appears at the equivalent location in the PHB. And elsewhere in the SRD we find: "Intelligence, measuring reasoning and memory". So if this is technically a definition it's not even consistent.

To translate this to our legal contract, we would have something like "The Client, which could be Wiley E. Coyote, John T. Smith, Ulysses S. Grant, or somebody like that", which wouldn't be very useful. Especially if elsewhere in the contract it said "Mr. Coyote and U. Grant." and in another place it added a name.

Ok, I think I've thoroughly covered the shortcomings of the "legal contract" analogue.

But I could see how you might still say this language is a "rule", even if it only provides example uses and not an exhaustive list. If that's the case, what's the "rule" actually saying? Effectively: "When skills of this type are required, the Int score is the relevant ability that should be applied." And what does that mean? The rules are pretty clear: it means that when you perform a related task that depends on that ability, roll a d20 and apply the modifier from that ability to that result.

And that's exactly what Eloelle is doing. What the rules do NOT say is how you need to narrate the results.

Q.E.F.D.

Onward to the Sorcerer example:

Probably not all that much different, that is not how spellcasting "works" in D&D. Would you simply be ignoring the V,S,M components or would you consider "If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell." to be "not a rule" by some definition?

Agreed. The deck could count as the Arcane focus (covering the material component), the throwing of the card is the somatic component, and the Sorcerer can say whatever he wants.

This does raise issues if, for example, he loses his deck of cards. As DM I personally would treat the deck as "plot proof", but even if the Sorcerer somehow lost the deck my only expectation would be that he narrates a solution. "I flay the slain enemies and draw new cards on pieces of their skin, using my own blood as ink." Or whatever.

Ok, next couple sections aren't terribly interesting. Then we get to your response to my question about the images of angelic wings on Devotion Paladins and whether not having them is "breaking the rules". You wrote:

Nope, I would not say that they were "breaking" the rules, they are simply not playing the subclass BTB, which is great if that's what's desired.

Soooo...what category is "not BTB"? Is that following the rules, or breaking the rules (a.k.a. "house ruling")? Because "within the rules" is pretty much a binary state, true or false. You can't be halfway on this one.

The book is quite clear and explicit (even more than in the Int definitions): devotion paladins put wings on their helm or shield (and nowhere else, "BTB"). Max, Danny...I'd ask you the same question: is the paladin who doesn't follow this edict house ruling? Does he need permission from his DM? Max, is it a "mechanical" change to exclude the wings?

(By the way, this isn't an edge case. I found the angelic wings example literally in the first paragraph I looked at, on the first page I landed on...I was aiming for the Druid section to find something useful and missed by a couple dozen pages. We could fill pages and pages with similar examples from throughout the book.)

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is a very dubious proposition. For instance, RAW in the Basic PDF does not spell out that a fireball (or any other source of fire damage) can set timber structures alight, but obviously it can.

At many points the rules leave the relationship between mechanical notions (such as fire damage) and the fiction to be extrapolated via the players of the game.

A fireball setting things on fire is not RAW. It's simply not written anywhere. The DM has to alter the fireball mechanics in order for that happen. I would allow it, but someone else might not.

Gygax is often not very careful about player vs character. But in the quote I posted he is not guilty of this carelessness. He does not talk about the character making or failing a save: he talks about the character "slightly tamper[ing] with [a magical attack] so as to render it ineffective", "withstanding . . . through sheer defiance". etc.

His examples were all how to narrate the PC's success or failure, not indications that the PC was not the one that saved. A success is narrated as a success, not a failure, and vise versa.

That's a weird example, because you seem to be talking about a retcon.

No retconning is taking place in [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example.

No retconning is taking place with mine, either. I am casting a fireball and narrating that the orcs were frozen to death. The end result is the same mechanically. Dead is dead.

Again, this seems to involve a category error. The patron exists only in the fiction. The mechanics are features of, and operate in, the real world.

Assuming you mean game world, I don't see how the patron only existing in the fiction matters. Deities only exist in the fiction and they have the power to make sure PCs make every save if they want.

"Agile" is as much a synonym for "dexterous" as "brawny" is for "strong".

No it isn't. Agility is speed and quickness. Dexterity is precision. High agility would let you throw a darts at a faster rate than I can, but my high dex would make my darts more accurate. Brawny is just brute strength.

A similar example to TwoSix's would be the trap that causes a reduction in a PC's DEX because it (say) chops off a hand or fingers. This is hardly unheard of!

A point or maybe two, maybe. Dropping from extremely high to extremely low over a few fingers or a hand? Not going to happen unless the DM is horrible. I wouldn't mind seeing a brawny strength 17 hobgoblin dropping to a brawny 15-16 strength hobgoblin over that sort of injury.

 

[happyhermit]

I got notifications that I was quoted in this thread, and it keeps showing as updated, but now I can't even see my own posts here

 

[happyhermit]

Probably, but I don't recall the question. I tend to only respond to posts that I find interesting or at least un-repetitive. If you would like to re-submit I will consider it.

Except you did respond to my post, you just ignored the question, and now you are asking me to be repetitive.

Anyways, the question was this;

So, what if the question posed to Eloelle was along the lines of "Do you think you know the answer?" What would ZOT or insight say about her answer then?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Except you did respond to my post, you just ignored the question, and now you are asking me to be repetitive.

What I should have said is that I don't always respond to every part of every post; just the interesting bits.

Anyways, the question was this;

So, what if the question posed to Eloelle was along the lines of "Do you think you know the answer?" What would ZOT or insight say about her answer then?

No difference from "what is the answer." I understand why you're asking the question, but no that's not what is happening. I will repeat:

Mechanical event stream: Eloelle fails the Riddle test, and so she neither has the answer nor believes she has the answer.
Fictional event stream: Eloelle easily solves the riddle, then her Patron shields her from ZoT, so she tells the caster "no" to both questions.
​

At no point can Eloelle ever derive any mechanical benefit from knowing the Riddle (such as being able to open the door to the treasure vault* or whatever), but neither can she suffer a consequence form it.

*It just occurred to me that one mechanical effect not related to dice rolls, or perhaps only very, very indirectly related to dice rolls, is gold pieces. Getting or losing gold is a mechanical change. The way that it is related is that with gold you can buy stuff that will affect your dice rolls.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No retconning is taking place with mine, either. I am casting a fireball and narrating that the orcs were frozen to death. The end result is the same mechanically.

Well, against orcs there's no change, but against other enemies cold damage might result in different damage, so that would be a mechanical change.

So in my view it would be TOTALLY FINE to say that your fireball did cold damage against the orcs, as long as you don't try to also make it cold damage when you're using it on fire elementals. And honestly I don't really care why you don't, but for the sake of a good story I hope you have a good reason, even it's just "Sorry, it's after March 21nd...I can only cast Ball of Cold in the Winter." (You should probably have another backup story in case this happens again and it *is* winter.)

And if you're a White Dragon Sorcerer then you might want to have an explanation for why your class bonus doesn't work in this one case.

But in all those cases I see the challenge of maintaining the fiction as an *opportunity* to tell good stories, not an argument against allowing a player to narrate this way.

 

[pemerton]

I got notifications that I was quoted in this thread, and it keeps showing as updated, but now I can't even see my own posts here

The solution that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] suggested to me, which is working so far, is to go into your settings, then choose the "General Settings" link on the LHS (under the "My Account" heading), and choose "newest first" rather than "oldest first" in your thread display options.

 

[Caliburn101]

And Croneman the Librarian has 5 Strength and massive muscles, but the only reason he doesn't do high damage is because he is constantly distracted in combat; has sweaty palms and his blade turns in his hands, or some other silly reason?

Anyone trying to characterise an ultra-low stat something as much higher but LIKE the lower stat 'because' would not be in my game for long. It would bleed over into meta-game application pretty quickly, and it's just plain ridiculous.

 

[pemerton]

we have to ask if there are there other things Int could refer to in the game. What about pattern recognition? Innate mathematical talent? Musical talent? Ability to visualize in 3D? Ability to estimate distances and volumes? How about inductive reasoning?

I hope you will agree that these things are also covered by Int, even though they're not explicitly listed. Which means that it's not a definition but merely a list of illustrative examples.

I absolutely agree that these aren't definitions or stipulations, but illustrative examples.

It just occurred to me that one mechanical effect not related to dice rolls, or perhaps only very, very indirectly related to dice rolls, is gold pieces. Getting or losing gold is a mechanical change. The way that it is related is that with gold you can buy stuff that will affect your dice rolls.

I think "affecting dice rolls" is too narrow. For instance, here's an instance of a mechanical event that doesn't involve dice rolls: I write "Detect Magic" on my list of memorised spells; later on in the game I declare "My guy casts Detect Magic"; now the GM is obliged to tell me something about whatever magic items and effects are able to be perceived by my character.

That's mechanical, but it's not about dice rolling.

I'm not sure if it's possible to give an "if and only if" definition of what's mechanical in a RPG, but I'm not sure that we need to. For instance, I'm not sure what's at stake in deciding whether or not the application of ZoT to your Eloelle example is "RAW" or "house ruling". To allude to one of [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s rival devotions: in the original, notorious "dissociated mechanics" blog post the Alexandrian described filling in the narration around mechanical effects that don't bring their own narration with them in a straightforward way as "house ruling" (his example was narrating the 4e War Devil's "besieged foe" power). My response to that was, and remains, that what he calls "house ruling" I call "playing the game"!

Consider the following:

A fireball setting things on fire is not RAW. It's simply not written anywhere. The DM has to alter the fireball mechanics in order for that happen. I would allow it, but someone else might not.

It seems to me that, once we have classified effects that inflict fire damage can set timber structures alight as a house rule, the category of "house rules" has lost whatever analytical utility it may have had.

By the same lights, inflicting a penalty on a reaction check because a player declares that his/her PC greets the NPCs with an insult about the circumstances of their births is going to count as a house rule. Likewise deciding that if a sack has a hole in it, then gold pieces put into it will fall out. Etc.