D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Ovinomancer]

Yup.

I'm happy to keep playing the "ok, so then what happens if..." game, because it's turtles all the way down. I might not be coming up with the *best* ideas here (nor were my initial 4 character sketches particularly well thought out), so maybe the answers are odd-ball, but it's meant to illustrate a point about how ability scores can be used.

I'll admit I'm puzzled why [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] and others are so adamantly opposed to any of this. "I would be annoyed playing with any of those 4 characters" I would totally understand. But that's very different from "it just won't work" or "it's against the rules".

And, yes, it could be challenging in some circumstances to maintain the persona. But for crying out loud isn't challenge what we want? It's what I want.

Well, because it is against the rules. The first thing you did was institute a house rule that allowed refluffing of how stats are defined. I thought that had been conceded?

If you mean, why are people arguing if we accept the houserule, then, yeah, it's mostly because they don't like that playstyle. I can (and have) played that way, but I prefer a game that's more grounded; that has more fidelity. Every one of your examples and every one of your further justifications all skew into the realm of just silly. While I'm fine with the occasional silly game and with the occasional silly D&D character, mostly I don't play D&D for my silly. Geniuses that can't function because they're mooning over a Modron or because their real live stuffed toy dominates their personality are just silly, and I don't find 'but, comeon guys, it's really more challenging to be silly, isn't it?! Why don't you also want to be silly?' to be especially motivating.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's when someone comes up with a 5 Intelligence character and claims that they actually know everything and are only pretending not to that my eyebrow starts to go up.

Put differently: pretending to be stupid and actually being stupid are 2 entirely different things. In game terms, the first is roleplay, the second one is mechanical.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So now, the character ALSO has fiat saves against truth magic? REALLY not buying this at all.

Possibly because you're really not understanding this at all. I didn't say the character mechanically saved, I'm saying it's narrated as if she did. It's a world of difference. What you're doing is looking for ways to force the player to admit something, rather than participating in the narrative illusion.

Dumb Eloelle:
DM: Roll to save vs. Zone of Truth
E: I failed
DM: "Tell me the answer to the Riddle!"
E: (robotically) "I do not know the answer"

Smart Eloelle:
DM: Roll to save vs. Zone of Truth
E: I failed
DM: "Tell me the answer to the Riddle!"
E: Ha...I pretend to have succumbed to his trivial little spell in order to deceive him, and answer robotically "I do not know the answer"

Exact same outcome. Why does "Smart Eloelle" offend you so deeply?

(And still unanswered, how does the Ranger defer to a tiger who is not present?)

"My tiger's spirit is here. Can't you see her?"
"I maintain a telepathic link with my tiger."
"Solve the puzzle yourself, I want to wallow in misery about my best friend missing."
"While she's gone, this little dung beetle, Novoznik, is my Temporary Best Friend"

Turtles all the way down, man. I'm not saying any of those are great examples of storytelling, but it's trivial to find workarounds.

Really, all you're doing is complicating a game with these little caveats you introduce to support the counter-RAW/RAI stat mechanics.

Oh, you want a simpler game. Yeah, it's definitely simpler to play low Int as dumb, low Str as weak, etc.

But you're still incorrect that this is "counter RAW/RAI stat mechanics". The mechanics do not change. All the changes is the narration.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, because it is against the rules. The first thing you did was institute a house rule that allowed refluffing of how stats are defined. I thought that had been conceded?

Huh? I don't recall "conceding" that re-fluffing requires a house rule. I don't even think of it as a "rule" because it's not changing mechanics. But, yeah, it's re-fluffing. No more, no less.

If you mean, why are people arguing if we accept the houserule, then, yeah, it's mostly because they don't like that playstyle. I can (and have) played that way, but I prefer a game that's more grounded; that has more fidelity. Every one of your examples and every one of your further justifications all skew into the realm of just silly. While I'm fine with the occasional silly game and with the occasional silly D&D character, mostly I don't play D&D for my silly. Geniuses that can't function because they're mooning over a Modron or because their real live stuffed toy dominates their personality are just silly, and I don't find 'but, comeon guys, it's really more challenging to be silly, isn't it?! Why don't you also want to be silly?' to be especially motivating.

Yup, totally valid. I don't love my examples, either. Except maybe Eloelle, who could be fun to play or play with. The Hobgoblin with the withered arm is probably the best example.

But maybe this is what is offending some people so deeply: they see these examples as "silly" and they don't want silly in their games.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I would argue it isn't arbitrary at all, since it's always grounded in the character concept. Ad hoc, sure, but that's part of the fun.

When you're conspiring against your character, you're not inhabiting your character.

Sure, why not? You've accomplished something in the game, and are spending resources to gain the information to boot. I mean, if the DM was willing to give out the info on an Arcana check, I think beating up a boss and casting a 2nd level spell probably deserves it.

Well, for starters, retrieving lore with magic is more on the order of 4th- and 5th-level spells (divination and contact other plane), and even then it's unreliable. So I question the premise that a character who spends a 2nd-level spell "deserves it" in any case. But even if they do, this is still a situation where you have generated an advantage through your narrative of being smart in spite of having a low Intelligence score, because a genuinely ignorant character could not get the information by doing the same thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Possibly because you're really not understanding this at all. I didn't say the character mechanically saved, I'm saying it's narrated as if she did. It's a world of difference. What you're doing is looking for ways to force the player to admit something, rather than participating in the narrative illusion.

Dumb Eloelle:
DM: Roll to save vs. Zone of Truth
E: I failed
DM: "Tell me the answer to the Riddle!"
E: (robotically) "I do not know the answer"

Smart Eloelle:
DM: Roll to save vs. Zone of Truth
E: I failed
DM: "Tell me the answer to the Riddle!"
E: Ha...I pretend to have succumbed to his trivial little spell in order to deceive him, and answer robotically "I do not know the answer"

Why does "Smart Eloelle" offend you so deeply?

Truth magic would disallow the answer you have provided for Smart Elolelle.

In a Zone of Truth, a creature can be evasive, but can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the spell's radius. By answering "I do not know the answer."- even robotically, the character is lying. Further, as I recall, the caster knows if the target creature has failed or succeeded in his have against the spell, so pretending to fail is going to be ineffective.

"My tiger's spirit is here. Can't you see her?"

Insanity isn't stupidity.

"I maintain a telepathic link with my tiger."

So now the PC gets free telepathy?

"Solve the puzzle yourself, I want to wallow in misery about my best friend missing."

Not answering the question is not the same as not knowing the answer.

"While she's gone, this little dung beetle, Novoznik, is my Temporary Best Friend"

Insanity isn't stupidity.

 

[TwoSix]

Yup, totally valid. I don't love my examples, either. Except maybe Eloelle, who could be fun to play or play with. The Hobgoblin with the withered arm is probably the best example.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] had a good example a few years back of a character in his game, who was religious, narrating a successful save against a polymorph effect as the character's goddess choosing to end the spell as a blessing to the character for his deep faith. That concept attracted a lot of controversy, for what I think are very similar reasons (a dislike of players inserting non-procedural narration into checks).

 

[Guest 6801328]

When you're conspiring against your character, you're not inhabiting your character.

Well, for starters, retrieving lore with magic is more on the order of 4th- and 5th-level spells (divination and contact other plane), and even then it's unreliable. So I question the premise that a character who spends a 2nd-level spell "deserves it" in any case. But even if they do, this is still a situation where you have generated an advantage through your narrative of being smart in spite of having a low Intelligence score, because a genuinely ignorant character could not get the information by doing the same thing.

Yeah...although TwoSix is mostly agreeing with me, I gotta split with him on this point: the Sorcerer cannot actually get the answer out of the warlock. That crosses the line into "mechanical change in the game world outside of the character's mind".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Why does "Smart Eloelle" offend you so deeply?

It's called "godmodding".

 

[Guest 6801328]

Truth magic would disallow the answer you have provided for Smart Elolelle.

In a Zone of Truth, a creature can be evasive, but can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the spell's radius. By answering "I do not know the answer."- even robotically, the character is lying. Further, as I recall, the caster knows if the target creature has failed or succeeded in his have against the spell, so pretending to fail is going to be ineffective.

If Eloelle were actually a genius, she would both have the information and make the saving throw. If she were actually a moron, she would not have the information and would not make the saving throw. Either way the outcome is the same. Why do you care how it's narrated?