D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Yardiff]

Pretty much. If I'm in the situation where I have to make a Strength check, I narrate successes on the basis that my large frame and overall athleticism allows me to compensate for my injured arm. (It helps to have an overall +8 to Athletics despite the 7 Str.) And when I do fail a save, I usually weave in a description about my arm being in the way or unable to grab something that might have helped.

I've been meaning to ask this but kept forgetting....

How does your Hobgoblin Sorcerer have an over all +8 athletics?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've been meaning to ask this but kept forgetting....

How does your Hobgoblin Sorcerer have an over all +8 athletics?

My assumption was that the character was in the midteens in level. He previously said that he had expertise in athletics.

 

[TwoSix]

I've been meaning to ask this but kept forgetting....

How does your Hobgoblin Sorcerer have an over all +8 athletics?

We're 9th level, and we have a +1 bonus to our proficiency bonus due to some campaign events that gave us a power up. The hobgoblin race our DM houseruled up has expertise in Athletics as a racial feature, so (5*2) - 2 = +8.

 

[Yardiff]

We're 9th level, and we have a +1 bonus to our proficiency bonus due to some campaign events that gave us a power up. The hobgoblin race our DM houseruled up has expertise in Athletics as a racial feature, so (5*2) - 2 = +8.

Ok I can see how this would work.

 

[Yardiff]

My assumption was that the character was in the midteens in level. He previously said that he had expertise in athletics.

I missed the part about expertise.

 

[pemerton]

PHB pg 153 gives us container capacities one of which is a jug has a capacity of 1 gallon of liquid.

So it would be a house rule to allow bigger or small jugs into the game?

And that still doesn't deal with the issue of spillage if the jug is carried while running.

 

[Yardiff]

So it would be a house rule to allow bigger or small jugs into the game?

And that still doesn't deal with the issue of spillage if the jug is carried while running.

This would be common sense assumptions but everyone knows common sense is not so common. If the jug is filled to the very brim then possible spillage could happen, but I've seen people with some pretty steady hands while running.

And yes it would be a house rule to add/subtract from the items list.

 

[Yardiff]

To me anytime you need to make a, what 5e calls 'ruling', its a house rule because it can be different from table to table. Maybe calling it 'table decisions' will make it easier to handle since 'house rule' seem to be to controversial.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There is zero extrapolation there. The rule is 1 hit point per day of rest. You engage that rule each day.

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.

This is not a house rule, because the rules for interacting and damaging objects are on page 185. The rule is that the DM decides the AC, hit points and any resistances for the object. The sword does the damage. No extrapolation is necessary at all.

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.

If your ruling alters or adds to a mechanic, it's a house rule. It does not apply to any other house but yours.

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 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.

Okay. Aside from the fact that there are rules for swords cutting cord, I have to say... And? Yes, the DM has to come up with stuff. NONE of those things are RAW. It's impossible for it to be. RAW is only what is explicitly written.

That doesn't mean that these are house rules.

It does when they are mechanical in nature.

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!

I bolded the problem with your statement. Unless they always ignite things or never ignite things, the DM has to make RULINGS, which are then rules for his game, since under the same circumstances in the future, the rule repeats itself.

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.

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.

Your extrapolation is a RULING, which makes it a rule for your game. Under the same circumstances, your rule will repeat itself. Were your ruling part of RAW, I would be required to use it unless I house ruled it away.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand why you are talking about the patron lying. That is some odd interpolation of yours that has no connection to the original scenario as outlined by Elfcrusher.

Elfcrusher insists that the patron is not a delusion, that means that the patron is real and is actually giving information to Eloelle. Since the answer is wrong, but the patron didn't tell that to Eloelle, the patron lied to her. If it hadn't lied, then she would have the correct answer and she doesn't have that due to the failed int check.

Anyway - the ZoT thing is only going to come up if the player has been allowed to play Eloelle at the table. At that point, we have two options: allow a 2nd level spell to break the game and break the character concept; or find a narration of the spell that will preserve both the gameplay status quo and the integrity of the character concept.

It doesn't break the concept. Eloelle still has a patron that gives her answers, and she is still required to keep them secret. Concepts are not immune to the game mechanics. Otherwise I could just make a character concept that says I can't be hurt by weapons and then they wouldn't be able to.

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has identified a simple solution that does both these things: at the level of gameplay, the evil cleric who casts the spell gets all the information s/he is entitled to get from ZoTing a 5 INT character (namely, little or none); and within the fiction, Eloelle keeps her secrets (thereby both preserving the integrity of the character concept and making sure that Eloelle's player continues to labour under the ignorance that follows from playing a 5 INT character who fails a good number of knowledge checks) because her patron protects her from the evil cleric's puny enchantment.

And in the process, she turns a failed save into a successful one by being able to lie to the caster. Those are fine if the mechanics are house ruled in her favor. Without a house rule there is only one way the mechanics allow her not to give the answer she "knows" to the riddle, and that's if she makes a successful save.

This is confusing. I think you are using "true" to mean "believed" and are using "know" to mean "believed" but I'm not sure.

No. Elfcrusher has been clear. She doesn't believe she knows, because he thinks that implies delusion. She really does know, but what she knows is incorrect. Because she knows, she must answer what she knows to the caster if she fails the save.

And (everything else being equal) it is boring gameplay for the GM to play with him-/herself - in this case, by taking the role of Eloelle and telling all the secrets that she hitherto has not revealed, and which her player has no knowledge of and (quite properly, given the 5 INT stat) hitherto has had no gameplay access to.

Wow! Where did you get "telling all the secrets" from "she has to answer one question"? The cast doesn't know what to ask her in order to get all of her secrets, and no concept is immune from being tested by the game's mechanics.