D&D 5E Mostly Useless Things in 5E?

[Lehrbuch]

1....Unless you are a wizard intelligence seems to be the ultimate dump stat.

As Sacrosanct says, if the group is making an effort to roleplay their characteristics, then Int is not really a dump-Ability. In fact none of the Abilities are.

Unless you want a party of anti-social, dumb-arses, constantly making bad decisions, then Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom really do need to be reasonable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yup I meant purely mechanically.

That doesn't matter though. You don't have a dump stat for mechanical reasons, and one for role play reasons. It's not like you can say, "Well, I'm using INT as my dump stat, but only for actual mechanics. For roleplaying, I'm using strength as my dump stat and moving that 8 from INT to STR."

That is, you only have one set of stats that impacts everything. So adding "for mechanical reasons" seems a bit odd.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Unless you want a party of anti-social, dumb-arses, constantly making bad decisions,...

Sounds like my old army gaming group

 

[mach1.9pants]

I don't think it's odd. On a purely mechanical and mathematical level, INT is not relevant for most classes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think it's odd. On a purely mechanical and mathematical level, INT is not relevant for most classes.

You said most PCs would use INT as a dump stat, because of mechanical reasons. Since you can't arbitrarily swap your stats, choosing to put your lowest score in INT impacts more than just the mechanical things. So that's odd, unless you don't do anything but mechanical things with no role playing involved at all. And my point is, regardless of mechanical reasons, people I know don't keep putting INT as their dump stat because they don't want a party of idiots all the time. I.e., using only mechanical reasons to allocate your stats is ignoring at least one entire pillar of the game.

 

[Lehrbuch]

I don't think it's odd. On a purely mechanical and mathematical level, INT is not relevant for most classes.

Only if you pretend that Ability Scores like INT (CHA and WIS) are not also mechanics to drive the roleplaying bit.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Nope I never said most PCs would use INT as a dump stat, I said that it would be (mechanically speaking) the dump stat of choice. I never said most do, I have no idea, but I reckon a lot will. 8 is not a complete moron, just not very intelligent. Also how you play your PC with low INT is a table thing, lots of groups ignore the low INT with respect to their PC's decisions and actions. Even the rulebooks are very lose on what INT actually means, giving example on memory, recalling lore, deciphering codes and recognising clues. Memory and reasoning, rather than tactically/strategically sound choices. There has always been a disconnect between player and PC INT and your table culture is as important as the rules, when it comes to character decision making.

 

[Lehrbuch]

...[H]ow you play your PC with low INT is a table thing, lots of groups ignore the low INT with respect to their PC's decisions and actions.

Yes. But commonly ignoring a mechanic isn't quite the same as there not being a mechanic.

There has always been a disconnect between player and PC INT and your table culture is as important as the rules, when it comes to character decision making.

Absolutely. No argument there.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As the title says. Various thigns that are mostly uselss in 5E IMHO.

1. Intelligence saves. There is a few spells (I can only think of feeblemind) and things like Mind FLayers and Intellect devourers. Unless you are a wizard intelligence seems to be the ultimate dump stat. No bonus skills or even languages mkaes it a really crappy stat for most classes.

2. Medium armor. Attacks are keyed off strength and dex so maxng one or the other is often a good idea. Medium armour is a bit better with 4d6 drop the lowest and a decent roll, along with spellcasters lacking proficiency in heavy armor. MAD s still a thing in 5E. Gets better if you can key your physical attacks off a spell casting stat (Nature clerics, Tomelocks, Dragonkin race).

I'm gonna hafta disagree with both those, IM5eE, both Int Saves and Medium Armor (well, not having Medium Armor as opposed to having Heavy) have proved FATAL more than once. The last time I remember characters up n' dieing was:

6th level Barbarian (with ridiculous HPs) v. Intellect Devourer. "Failed your save? Ok, you take... 7 points of INT damage. What's that? Your INT is now -2? Oh...uh...sorry...". He basically laughed in the face of death and boldly strode into battles that were (or should have been) waaaay over his head...but his min/maxed stats and capabilities finally caught up with him when his vulnerability was at play (INT).

Another time, a Paladin who had, up until this point, had Medium Armor. He dodged, swam, climbed, etc. with the best of them. Then he got some hobgoblin armor 'modified'...it was Heavy Armor. Not two sessions later, he was failing all that stuff...which got him smooshed when I allowed him a DEX save. Now, I know that my House Rule of applying the Heavy Armor "Disadvantage" (Stealth) thing isn't part of the rules...but they should be. "Standing Still and not moving" imposes disadvantage...but "Dodging, sprinting, and moving quickly" doesn't? ...makes zero sense to me...

Of course, just RAW, Medium Armor is...odd to have purely on a mechanical basis. Then again, IMC, Heavy Armor is quite rare and pretty much reserved for nobility, very-rich-types. But again, that's a campaign thing...nor RAW I guess...sorta...even though the DM is supposed to take all that into account in creating a 'believable world'. *shrug*

Anyway...INT Saves tend to KILL as much as WIS ones. And Medium Armor...well, depends on how lavishly the DM holds to other rules that would benefit/hinder being in Medium Armor ("Disadvantage" rolls, encumberance weight limits, availability, social stigma/acceptance, etc).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[happyhermit]

... But it was certainly dismissive, you waved it away as 'subjective' and refused to lay any groundwork or actually address anything about it. You've carefully continued to do so, as well, spending far more energy denying it than it would have taken to cut the OP to ribbons on it's limited merits.

It was not about how much energy I expended, it was simply that I didn't feel like being negative in an already negative OP thread, and taking apart people's points to demonstrate that they were subjective was the only alternative to stating that generally. I didn't "refuse" to do any groundwork, I just didn't see the need and or point in doing so. The only reason this side discussion has continued is that you responded to my post and I have gone on to explain my points. In fact, I might argue that you haven't really disagreed with me that discussions that meet the criteria I pointed out are "mostly useless". You responded with tangents about how much worse things were in other situations and that I should ignore things.

I really don't want to argue about this though, I explained what I was trying to say, if you want to interpret it some other way, fine.