D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sure. But this is what (in the context of DEX) allows Gygax to say that a low-DEX character might nevertheless be agile. It is what allows [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] to say that the hobgoblin with the withered dominant arm nevertheless is brawny of build. And - with a bit of further stretching but no obvious breaking - allows [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] to say that the character whose love-befuddlement leads to saying and doing silly things, or whose devotion to/control by a patron/tiger leads him/her to always assert falsehoods and make irrational choices, is nevertheless very clever.

The alternative is to say that Gygax, TwoSix and Elfcrusher have got it wrong, and that the low DEX (or STR, or INT) character must be poor at all of it, just as the high DEX (or STR, or INT) character is good at all of it. There's nothing wrong with that narration for a particular character, but is it mandated in general by the rules of the game?

For what it's worth, on this point I'm inclined to side with Gygax. Which naturally leads me to sympathise also with TwoSix and Elfcrusher.

. . . I'm not actually sure what you thought that I was talking about there. With the possible exception of the nonweapon proficiency proliferation in 2nd(?) ed D&D and the skill system of 3rd, D&D has always used a fairly basic skill system, with limited of no scope for specialisation to the sort of extent that real-life career and knowledge now use.
As far as I know, this was something that Gygax started, and neither of those other two authorities of D&D: TwoSix or Elfcrusher seem to have issues with this.

 

[Maxperson]

Hesitant as I am to quote myself, the following seems pretty relevant to this:

There is no permissible extrapolation from the text around fireballs and fire damage to sandwich-making and clothes-changing. Whereas the extrapolation to a fireball being able to set combustible materials alight is incredibly strong, given that it does the same sort of damage (fire damage!) as burning oil, torches and alchemist's fire, all of which have the obvious capacity to set things alight.

I don't think the notion of "by default" has any work to do here, and neither [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] nor I has used it. The relevant notion, rather is how to describe these extrapolations from rules which are, of necessity, incomplete in what they literally state in express words.

Here's another example: the equipment list contains jugs and pitchers (Basic PDF, p 48). But there is no entry for these items. Is it a house rule for a GM to declare that a jug can hold fluids? That a jug might spill if it is full of water and being carried by a running person, or a person walking across a balance beam?

Is it a house rule to permit a player to successfully declare "My character bangs her sword in her shield to make a noise, so as to try and attract attention?" The fact that swords banged on shields might make noise isn't called out in the rules.

None of these rulings would be a departure from rules as written. They are all interpretations of, or applications of, the rules as they are written.

You can't extrapolate a single thing and still be playing RAW. The instant you do, you have left WRITTEN and engages in a rule that applies only to your house. Your extrapolation has no bearing on my game and I am not required to rule against your extrapolation if I don't approve.

Yes, the rules don't cover every circumstance. That's irrelevant. Any time you make a ruling based on a circumstance that the rules do not cover, you have altered that rule for your house and your house only, making it a house rule. You don't get to go around making this house rules and say that they are RAW. They aren't.

As for there being no default. That's bupkis. The default is RAW, unless it is specifically offered up as an optional rule. There is no need for the game to explicitly tell you, "This is default."

The rules are intended to be applied. That is what they are for. Deciding that something starts burning because within the AoE of a fireball isn't changing the rules, or adding to the rules. It's applying the rules - in this case, the rule that (i) fireballs do fire damage, and (ii) fire damage is the sort of thing that is inflicted by lit torches, burning oil, alchemist's fire, dragon breath and spells that conjure flames.

There is no rule that says fireballs, lit torches, burning oil or any object of fire starts things burning, unless the specific rules on that object say so. You have to add that to the rules yourself. Does it make sense for that to happen? Yes. Does your addition to the rules force me to do the same unless I change the rule? No. It applies to your house only.

It's no surprise that in circumstances where that assumption fails to hold good - which is what happens in [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s Eloelle scenario - then the spell can't be resolved completely straightforwardly.

Since it absolutely can be resolved completely straightforwardly, there is no "can't." The spell requires that she tell the truth. The truth is that she knows the answer. Her answer is incorrect. Therefore she tells the incorrect answer that she knows to be the truth. It doesn't get more straightforward than that.

At that point we ask - what is the gameplay function of ZoT? The answer: to change the fictional situation as to which character has what knowledge; it transmits knowledge from one character to another. But which knowledge - character knowledge, or player knowledge? Normally we don't need to answer this question, because the two don't come apart; but the Eloelle scenario forces us to answer it. (Other scenarios could too - eg if the player knows more than the character.)

There is no requirement that any truthful answer be correct. Only that it be the truth. If I as DM have someone lie to your PC and then another PC casts Zone of Truth, your PC will give that answer as the truth, even though it is incorrect. There is no reason for me to clue you in that your truth is incorrect so that your PC can give a different response.

Elfcrusher's point, as I understand it, is that in the Eloelle scenario the player has no knowledge (because s/he is stuck with the consequences of having a 5 INT). In circumstances of player/character identity as to knowledge, ZoT would not transmit any knowledge when cast on the PC. So when the circumstances depart from that, as in the Eloelle scenario, the same should be the case. This point is reinforced by the fact that the player doesn't actually know what it is that Eloelle supposedly knows but doesn't act on (ie the player is more ignorant than the character) and so is in no position to narrate his/her PC providing true knowledge to the NPC.

It doesn't matter if the player doesn't know the answer. Eloelle does because her patron gave it to her. That the patron lied is another matter entirely. Eloelle is required to give that answer. Since the player didn't receive the information on what the lie was, there are two choices. He can invent something, or ask the DM what the lie was that she was told so that he can give the truthful answer to the caster. In no case can he simply narrate that she made a save that was failed and then offer up a lie and say anything other than the truthful incorrect answer. At least not without a house rule to change the mechanics of the situation.

 

[pemerton]

. . . I'm not actually sure what you thought that I was talking about there.

Sorry, I read your post in the context of my series of posts in exchange with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].

I made the point that Gygax, in his DMG, says that a low-DEX character might nevertheless be agile (but the low DEX is a consequence of all the other relevant attributes, such as speed of movement, speed of reflex, etc being poor). This is permissible because the stats operate at a relatively low level of granularity.

I think that the same lack of granularity in the other stats is what creates the scope for [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s hobgoblin character to have a low STR despite being brawny, because the low-STR is a function of extreme weakness in one highly salient aspect of overall STR (namely, a withered dominant arm).

And the same lack of granularity further allows - with a bit of a stretch, but (in my view) no breakage - [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s concepts to fit into the stat system: these characters are clever, but nevertheless have low INT because their other aspects of overall INT (namely, the various circumstances under which they labour: love-struck, patron, tiger etc) mean that they are unable to actually deploy or have practical cognitive access to the fruits of their knowledge.

 

[pemerton]

Stop right there. I completely disagree with this. No mechanic requires that the player know what the character knows

In the case of ZoT, if the player doesn't know what the character knows, but is obliged by the circumstances of the casting of the spell to narrate his/her PC stating that information, what happens?

The game can't just grind to a halt. Some non-standard solution has to be found.

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s strikes me as superior in at least two obvious respects to the most salient alternative in which Eloelle gives a sincere answer, namely, that the GM narrates the actions of the PC: (i) the player doesn't have to forfeit narration of his/her PC's action and let someone else (the GM) do it; (ii) the player doesn't get the benefit of learning stuff that s/he doesn't actually know in order to then exploit that knowledge for gameplay purposes.

the Evil Cleric who cast the ZoT that LOL failed to resist has been thwarted, which means he/she/it doesn't have the knowledge to advance their plans. This is a benefit for the party

<snip>

I get the argument that it doesn't make a difference within the narrow scope of the question and answer of the ZoT. But that ignores the precedent setting that the story narrated has no connection with the mechanics or other stories in the game.

Which of these is the case? I don't see that they can both be true.

I think that the reason it makes no difference is because what is thwarting the evil cleric is the fact that s/he cast ZoT on the 5 INT PC. The narration around that fact isn't making any difference to the overall practical outcome (of course it changes the fiction, but that's not in dispute): instead of the evil cleric getting no useful information because the 5 INT PC has nothing useful to say (the standard, default interpretation of a 5 INT PC), the evil cleric gets no useful information because the player of the 5 INT PC is committed to a concept in which, in the fiction, the character has lots of potentially useful information but is precluded from actually stating or acting on that information in any fashion whatsoever, and has a powerful patron who even prevents divulging that information under ZoT, domination, etc.

Changing the narration doesn't change what information the evil cleric gets. Hence it confers no benefit to the players. In the fiction, I guess Eloelle is better off than she would have been had her patron not protected her, but that is neither here nor there from the point of view of gameplay. If Eloelle had actually been built with (say) 16 INT, and hence at the table it was taken for granted that under ZoT she has to hand over her information (if giving a sincere answer), then the player of Eloelle would also have access to that information for a host of other purposes, and the she won't tell because her patron won't let her element of the fiction wouldn't even be present.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In the case of ZoT, if the player doesn't know what the character knows, but is obliged by the circumstances of the casting of the spell to narrate his/her PC stating that information, what happens?

The game can't just grind to a halt. Some non-standard solution has to be found.

I gave an example with myself, tracking, and my ranger character. I narrate that I tell the truth that my character knows, even if I don't.

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s strikes me as superior in at least two obvious respects to the most salient alternative in which Eloelle gives a sincere answer, namely, that the GM narrates the actions of the PC: (i) the player doesn't have to forfeit narration of his/her PC's action and let someone else (the GM) do it; (ii) the player doesn't get the benefit of learning stuff that s/he doesn't actually know in order to then exploit that knowledge for gameplay purposes.

Hold up, you're getting messy with the terms here. The player in both Elfcrusher's and my examples both narrate their actions -- they action declaration is the same in both. The difference is the outcome narration. I'm uncertain if we're talking about the same thing, so please clarify that before I respond.

Which of these is the case? I don't see that they can both be true.

They can't, which is my problem. ZoT doesn't work the way you suggest it does -- for it to work that way it would require a houserule. Elfcrusher's been adamant that no houseruling is involved. I'm fine if you want to work it EC's way and call it a houserule -- sound fun. But it requires changing how ZoT works.

I think that the reason it makes no difference is because what is thwarting the evil cleric is the fact that s/he cast ZoT on the 5 INT PC. The narration around that fact isn't making any difference to the overall practical outcome (of course it changes the fiction, but that's not in dispute): instead of the evil cleric getting no useful information because the 5 INT PC has nothing useful to say (the standard, default interpretation of a 5 INT PC), the evil cleric gets no useful information because the player of the 5 INT PC is committed to a concept in which, in the fiction, the character has lots of potentially useful information but is precluded from actually stating or acting on that information in any fashion whatsoever, and has a powerful patron who even prevents divulging that information under ZoT, domination, etc.

Changing the narration doesn't change what information the evil cleric gets. Hence it confers no benefit to the players. In the fiction, I guess Eloelle is better off than she would have been had her patron not protected her, but that is neither here nor there from the point of view of gameplay. If Eloelle had actually been built with (say) 16 INT, and hence at the table it was taken for granted that under ZoT she has to hand over her information (if giving a sincere answer), then the player of Eloelle would also have access to that information for a host of other purposes, and the she won't tell because her patron won't let her element of the fiction wouldn't even be present.

In a game about stories, changing the fiction changes the outcome. The mechanics only exist to resolve issues of questionable outcome. Not affecting the mechanics (which I disagree is the truth here) doesn't mean it doesn't affect the game. It clearly does. And it does so by violating the 'no lying' requirement of ZoT.

 

[BoldItalic]

Player: My character does something brilliant and genius-like.
DM: Okay, but what exactly is he doing?
Player: I don't know, but it's awesome.
DM: * Pretends to roll dice * Okay. You succeed. Something astonishing happens.
Player: Cool. Er .. what?
DM: I don't know either. But what you did was so brilliant, I'm giving you Inspiration.
Other Player: Huh?

 

[pemerton]

allowing LOL to breach the mechanics for narration, even while the narrow view doesn't change anything -- means that the direction of the game if affected

The only effect here is the change in narration. Which is the whole point. Which means it's not true that it doesn't change anything: it changes the fiction.

What it doesn't do is confer any practical gameplay benefit upon Eloelle's player.

If you can lie under a ZoT because your patron gives you protection from it's effects, then surely you can murder your new charm-casting bestie under the same protection.

Why? The first doesn't confer any gameplay benefit: the player plays under all the burdens of having 5 INT (little or no practical access to useful information) and gets one of the few benefits of that (little or no liability to having to divulge information when affected by Enchantment spells).

The other would be cheating, in the traditional sense of that word: the player would be ignoring or breaking the rules of the game to get a significant gameplay benefit.

What possible reason is there to think that permitting one narration entails, or even opens up the suggestion of, permitting the other? I mean, your table isn't going to allow it, because you won't even allow the move with respect to ZoT.

And [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] and I aren't going to allow it, because it's cheating.

So who do you think has some reason to agree with your "surely" claim?

It makes a bigger splash than the narrow look Elfcrusher takes. Elfcrusher seems to be entirely focused on the narrow, immediate issue to the detriment of his own arguments

<snip>

I don't mind altering fluff or allowing a free hand at narration, but I also expect such narration to be long term coherent and not a series of increasingly outlandish patches to save a bad concept.

Who do you think takes a different view from the one that you express in the final quoted sentence? I don't, and I doubt that [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] does either.

But Eloelle isn't a self-evidently bad concept. The ZoT narration is ad hoc, but it's not incoherent nor is it particularly outlandish in a fantasy RPG.

I think the Eloelle character would be potentially more interesting if at a certain point s/he read a Tome of Clear Thought or acquired a Gem of Insight and was suddenly able to bring her secret knowledge to bear! - thus creating some sort of character arc or transformation that play a major role in driving the game. Without that, s/he's mostly just a bit of colour that adds some minor flavour to play but doesn't really drive things. But that still strikes me as mostly harmless colour - and her warlockishness still has the capacity to play out meaningfully in some other (non-knowledge-related) aspect of the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Player: My character does something brilliant and genius-like.
DM: Okay, but what exactly is he doing?
Player: I don't know, but it's awesome.
DM: * Pretends to roll dice * Okay. You succeed. Something astonishing happens.
Player: Cool. Er .. what?
DM: I don't know either. But what you did was so brilliant, I'm giving you Inspiration.
Other Player: Huh?

Is there a point, here?

 

[pemerton]

You can't extrapolate a single thing and still be playing RAW. The instant you do, you have left WRITTEN and engages in a rule that applies only to your house.

There are so many counterexamples to this that it's hard to know where to start.

Gygax's DMG says that a PC regains 1 hp per day of rest. My PC rests for 4 days, so I extrapolate that my PC regains 4 hp. That is not a house rule.

The rulebook lists a sword as a weapon. I equip my PC with a sword. Later on in the game, my PC needs to cut some cord. I tell my GM (as my character) that I use my sword to cut the cord - the GM says "Yep, fine". That is an extrapolation from the description of the weapon I purchases as a sword to the fact that it has a cutting edge that can be used to cut things. It is not a house rule.

In general, every application of a rule to derive a concrete consequences is an extrapolation, especially when (as in D&D) those rules are stated in non-formal, natural language terms.

I ask again: are you really saying that it is a house rule to allow that a jug, purchased by a PC from the Basic PDF equipment list, is able to hold fluids? Or will spill if tipped over?

There is no rule that says fireballs, lit torches, burning oil or any object of fire starts things burning, unless the specific rules on that object say so.

There is no rule that says that jugs hold water, or that sword blades can cut cord, or that banging swords on shields makes a noise, or that characters with lips can whistle.

That doesn't mean that these are house rules.

The point of using natural language terms to describe game elements - fire, torch, burning oil, sword, jug, lip, etc - is so that all this information is conveyed without needing to be expressly spelled out. This is the key difference, too, between a RPG and a boardgame (or CCG etc). The fact that a fireball is a fireball doing fire damage and not a lightning bolt doing lightning damage isn't simply fluff text, like the italics on a MtG card. Nor is it simply a descriptor that triggers some mechanical interactions, like the keyword flying on a MtG card. It tells us something about what is happening in the shared fiction, which brings with it various self-evident potentialities - such as the potential to ignite combustible materials. (Likewise the blade of the sword has the potential to cut cord; the jug has the potential to hold water; etc.)

the rules don't cover every circumstance.

But they cover some. For instance, the rules around fire damage cover the circumstances of whether or not sources of fire damage can ignite combustible materials, because they tell us that fire damage (read that again - fire damage) is the sort of thing that results from burning oil, flaming torches, alchemist's fire, dragon breath, and conjured flames. These are all things that are prone to ignite combustible materials!

It's as certain that a fireball may set things alight as that a jug can be filled with water. If one is a house rule than so is the other; but I think it's obvious that neither is.

This isn't 4e, where the mechanics were 100% carved out from the fluff.

I'm not 100% sure what you're intending to convey by this, but 4e's mechanics engage the fiction at many of the same places as 5e's. In both games, for instance, the mechanics and rules generate exactly the same sort of reason to think that a fireball spell might set combustible material alight.

Your extrapolation has no bearing on my game and I am not required to rule against your extrapolation if I don't approve.

I don't understand the second clause.

As for the first: all you are saying that is that one person's application of the rules is irrelevant to another person's game. This is true, but has no bearing on the nature or source of the rules that they are applying. All it means is that I am not the boss of your game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sorry, I read your post in the context of my series of posts in exchange with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].

Ah. S'OK. I stopped keeping track of this thread a while back so wasn't following the exchange.

I was just making the point that the various examples were probably all of relatively high-int characters, but with varying skills.

I made the point that Gygax, in his DMG, says that a low-DEX character might nevertheless be agile (but the low DEX is a consequence of all the other relevant attributes, such as speed of movement, speed of reflex, etc being poor). This is permissible because the stats operate at a relatively low level of granularity.

I think that the same lack of granularity in the other stats is what creates the scope for [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s hobgoblin character to have a low STR despite being brawny, because the low-STR is a function of extreme weakness in one highly salient aspect of overall STR (namely, a withered dominant arm).

I'd probably suggest leg since that would explain why the Hobgoblin also couldn't carry a heavy backpack, but that concept would be fine in my eyes as DM.

I'd generally require concept fitting abilities, so for example if your monk is only Str 10, he won't look like Bruce Lee without an unusual explanation, or likewise with a Str 16 character looking like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The withered arm/leg is a good way of fitting the concept to the mechanical capabilities.

And the same lack of granularity further allows - with a bit of a stretch, but (in my view) no breakage - [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s concepts to fit into the stat system: these characters are clever, but nevertheless have low INT because their other aspects of overall INT (namely, the various circumstances under which they labour: love-struck, patron, tiger etc) mean that they are unable to actually deploy or have practical cognitive access to the fruits of their knowledge.

Most of those are a little more extreme, and several, as Elfcrusher has mentioned, would require buy-in from the other players to be acceptable. Whether I allowed any of those would be on a player-based case-by-case basis.