D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TwoSix]

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

Something which is not a requirement to play an RPG. When did [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] get into this thread?

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.

I feel that's OK. I often let players assert things because of background considerations. If they have the Urchin background, I'l let them decide they know the barkeep they're getting information from in their hometown, for example. This case would similar, just without the mechanical tie to background.

And, most importantly, it's not like the player was seeking out that advantage within that situation. Their initial knowledge was played for laughs, and the current scenario with the sorcerer grew organically out of that narration. I find that to be fruitful roleplaying!

 

[TwoSix]

Insanity isn't stupidity.

As [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said above, there's no difference between a 5 Int and an 18 Int with a -7 circumstance penalty.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Do you seriously need answers to these?

Insanity isn't stupidity.

Are you 100% sure that you, the real person, can always tell the difference?

So now the PC gets free telepathy?

With his absent tiger? Why not? Not in the mechanical sense like you get with Find Familiar, but just roleplaying telepathy. Let's explore this one. You tell me what you think is going to happen that's so bad, and I'll tell you what the player can do to prevent that.

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

Mechanically it's identical. "Player X is too distracted to think about the puzzle and therefore does not know the answer."

Insanity isn't stupidity.

But I hear it is repeating the same thing and hoping for a different outcome.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I feel that's OK. I often let players assert things because of background considerations. If they have the Urchin background, I'l let them decide they know the barkeep they're getting information from in their hometown, for example. This case would similar, just without the mechanical tie to background.

Of course, but backgrounds don't allow you to decide you've passed checks you actually failed at. The situation is not analogous.

And, most importantly, it's not like the player was seeking out that advantage within that situation. Their initial knowledge was played for laughs, and the current scenario with the sorcerer grew organically out of that narration. I find that to be fruitful roleplaying!

And the next time it happens?

What happens when the PCs start keeping a 3rd-level cleric on retainer to do this regularly? You've established that zone of truth works to get information out of the warlock; couldn't they take advantage of it?

 

[TwoSix]

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".

You're dead to me, Elfcrusher! Dead to me!

Yea, I'm a little conflicted on it myself, but when I think of the character's concept as a modified Background, I feel much more comfortable letting the player assert knowledge in certain situations. And like I said, the player wasn't seeking an advantage, it just kind of happened. You can't really plan for "I pretend not to know things I really know as a character concept, my character gets captured and the knowledge magically removed from my mind, and then I free myself to gain the information from that character I wasn't allowing myself to use."

Although, that being said, it isn't like it's Eloelle casting the zone of truth to gain the information. Since Eloelle already knows the answer (and won't say), this must be an action by another character, which makes it A-OK. I don't think "fruit of the poisonous tree" concepts apply to RPG knowledge checks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If they have the Urchin background, I'l let them decide they know the barkeep they're getting information from in their hometown, for example. This case would similar, just without the mechanical tie to background.

I do the same thing, but I suspect some of the people in this thread find that to be an alien concept: they think it's the DM's responsibility to provide that sort of information. It's fine to play that way, of course, especially with an experienced DM and new players. But it's by no means the only way to play, and one that no longer interests me as much.

Two weeks ago I was in an Adventurer's League game with a sorcerer who had a deck of cards. To cast his spells he would pull cards from his deck and throw them. Each one was described, e.g. "I pull out a 3 of Diamonds, and fling it at the Ghoul. It turns into three glowing darts that strike the Ghoul in the chest....doing...dang, a total of 6 damage." And OF COURSE he didn't change any of the mechanics of how a Sorcerer works, nor did he ever say, "Ha! Even though a normal Sorcerer would be out of spell slots, I still have this whole deck of cards so I get to keep casting!" It seems to me that's what Dannyalcatraz is afraid of: "Why WOULDN'T he keep casting if has that whole deck of cards?" He didn't because he's using the RP to express the mechanics, not to circumvent them.

And, most importantly, it's not like the player was seeking out that advantage within that situation. Their initial knowledge was played for laughs, and the current scenario with the sorcerer grew organically out of that narration. I find that to be fruitful roleplaying!

Me, too! The thing I love about these kinds of improvisations is that you really don't know where they're going to go, and great ideas can result form doing it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're dead to me, Elfcrusher! Dead to me!

Yea, I'm a little conflicted on it myself, but when I think of the character's concept as a modified Background, I feel much more comfortable letting the player assert knowledge in certain situations. And like I said, the player wasn't seeking an advantage, it just kind of happened. You can't really plan for "I pretend not to know things I really know as a character concept, my character gets captured and the knowledge magically removed from my mind, and then I free myself to gain the information from that character I wasn't allowing myself to use."

Although, that being said, it isn't like it's Eloelle casting the zone of truth to gain the information. Since Eloelle already knows the answer (and won't say), this must be an action by another character, which makes it A-OK. I don't think "fruit of the poisonous tree" concepts apply to RPG knowledge checks.

As the DM I actually would probably allow it, just as a kind of reward for awesome roleplaying. But the default assumption should be that it would fail, and it's Eloelle's players responsibility to narrate why. If the DM then wants to participate in the fiction and override RAW that's cool.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course, but backgrounds don't allow you to decide you've passed checks you actually failed at. The situation is not analogous.

Sure, but they can allow for auto-success. Or simply a reason for the DM to "say yes" rather than roll. If the player wants to have a background concept of "Sometimes, when I fail knowledge checks, I actually know the answer but never use the information," I'm OK with that. I'm in favor of broad use of background concepts to let the players shape the story.

And the next time it happens?

What happens when the PCs start keeping a 3rd-level cleric on retainer to do this regularly? You've established that zone of truth works to get information out of the warlock; couldn't they take advantage of it?

Quite simply, I don't play with people who think like that. If I do, I don't use these kind of concepts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

First, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ZoT a Cha based save? If so, she might not make that save "because I'm a genius"...

At any rate, the narration isn't a panacea to the situation you're creating with your redefinition of Int.

In the ZoT, there are 4 basic outcomes to the caster's queries, 2 for each version of Eloelle.

1) If Eloelle is an idiot and fails her save, she answers truthfully "I don't know." The caster knows this answer is truthful.

2) If Eloelle is an idiot and makes her save, she can answer truthfully "I don't know." or she can lie. But the caster will know she made her save and won't necessarily accept the given answer as truth.

3) If Eloelle is a genius and fails her save, she cannot answer "I don't know." She HAS to give the correct answer if she knows it regardless of the Patron's menacing whispers; the ZoT's caster knows this answer is truthful.

4) If Eloelle is an genius and makes her save, she can answer with a lie "I don't know." or she can tell the truth (though she might not, I'd her patron forbids it). But the caster will know she made her save and won't necessarily accept the given answer as truth.

Working with the stated initial premise that genius Eloelle knows the answers but lies about them, situation 3 raises an insoluble conflict between mechanics and the desired RP result. She can't both know the answer and not know it.

 

[TwoSix]

As the DM I actually would probably allow it, just as a kind of reward for awesome roleplaying. But the default assumption should be that it would fail, and it's Eloelle's players responsibility to narrate why. If the DM then wants to participate in the fiction and override RAW that's cool.

Yea, I agree with that. It's an easy thing for the DM to include.

I wonder what other kind of narrations cause this kind of dissonance? Beautiful woman with 5 Cha? Marathon runner with 5 Con?