Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 2694054" data-attributes="member: 813">If we were debating the nature of Intelligence this would be a useful starting point, but we are playing a game and in that game Intelligence has a specific definition that overrides the dictionary definition. Specifically:Notice that is says nothing about speed of reasoning, only how WELL. A high int character can logically deduce (i.e. reason) better than a low int character. An Int 18 Wizard may be book-smarter than the rest of the party, he may not be. But when solving a logic puzzle, there are puzzles the Int 6 fighter will NEVER solve, that the Int 18 wizard will solve with a little effort. Logic puzzles that are not at some level based on Int checks defy the "rules" of the game. I'm not saying you just say "You enter a room give me an Int check. Okay, Bill got a 25 so you defeat the puzzle." But the players of high Int characters should be given hints or skill checks that will help them play their role correctly.Personally, I find this debate interesting when cross-compared to the "help in combat" debate: do you allow other players to give advice the currently active player in combat? If mister knowledge (warfare) is making a blunder of Napoleanic proportion, do you let the character playing the wizard point out his error and allow the fighter to change his course of action? If you don't think player Intelligence should influence in game actions then the wizard's player becomes a line of reasoning in the fighter's head that comes to him at the last second before he commits a tactical blunder.On the third hand, both of these concepts play upon the meta-concept of the social contract that brings the players and DM to the table. And no one answer will satisfy all.</blockquote>

Verification