D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

I've already stated my position.

Yes, you have, but you haven't answered the question asked. There's a difference between those two.

If you'd rather not answer, that's fine, but please stop acting as if you've answered the question asked.

I believe there is a common forum word for making claims that one's preferred way of roleplaying is objectively correct. It escapes me at the moment though.

Well, good thing I never said I was objectively correct in my preferred way of roleplaying. I said that playing a definitional above average ability with a definitional below average ability score is definitionally incorrect. Premises can vary, though.

I'd never tell someone else that they can't have fun doing something objectively bad. I can think of a ton of objectively bad things that are fun. I'm much more of a 'you have fun playing your way, man' kind of guy. I think that's fantastic for the hobby. I'm happy you disagree with me on this, and have great fun playing games your way with your set of opinions. Wouldn't want it any other way. But, if you ask me my opinion, I'll give it to you, but it comes with zero expectation that you should heed it or, god forbid, you should find it as me telling you how to play.

If you want to ignore that a 5 intelligence is below average by definition of the rules, go ahead. Doesn't bother me. I'm glad you're having fun, as that's the only metric I actually care about. I wouldn't have fun in a game where someone had a 5 INT and played like Sherlock Holmes. That would grate on me. But that's my issue, and, as I've said, my resolution would be to remove myself, not tell them they can't play that way.

 

[iserith]

Yes, you have, but you haven't answered the question asked. There's a difference between those two.

If you'd rather not answer, that's fine, but please stop acting as if you've answered the question asked.

I'm not sure what the question was.

Well, good thing I never said I was objectively correct in my preferred way of roleplaying. I said that playing a definitional above average ability with a definitional below average ability score is definitionally incorrect. Premises can vary, though.

I'd never tell someone else that they can't have fun doing something objectively bad. I can think of a ton of objectively bad things that are fun. I'm much more of a 'you have fun playing your way, man' kind of guy. I think that's fantastic for the hobby. I'm happy you disagree with me on this, and have great fun playing games your way with your set of opinions. Wouldn't want it any other way. But, if you ask me my opinion, I'll give it to you, but it comes with zero expectation that you should heed it or, god forbid, you should find it as me telling you how to play.

If you want to ignore that a 5 intelligence is below average by definition of the rules, go ahead. Doesn't bother me. I'm glad you're having fun, as that's the only metric I actually care about. I wouldn't have fun in a game where someone had a 5 INT and played like Sherlock Holmes. That would grate on me. But that's my issue, and, as I've said, my resolution would be to remove myself, not tell them they can't play that way.

I don't ignore that Intelligence 5 is below average. I even posted that, recently. Even so, the rules don't say how anyone has to roleplay that 5.

 

[dennis_johnjoe]

You can roleplay low intelligence in a number of different ways like any of the other non- physical attributes. For example, your character maybe perfectly charming but have hideous facial scarring that result in a charisma of 6. People just find it difficult to warm to him when they see those wounds.
Likewise with intelligence. There's examples up thread of possessing intelligence without having had any academic learning. I think that, so long as you justify your approach, anything goes really.
Ultimately, the mechanics of the game will determine how successful you are.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, you've got it. The result of rolling 3d6 generates a number. That number is just a number, and has all of the meanings that just numbers have. An 18 is just the number 18. Six times greater than the number three, and one more than 17.

That's not accurate. While the multiplication is correct, the statement is not, at least not in D&D. Going with 3e, a 3 strength PC can lift 30 pounds over his head, while an 18 strength PC can lift 300. That's 10x stronger, not 6. The other stats are similar. A 3 stat yields a -4 bonus, while an 18 has a +4. That's an 8 point swing, not a 6 point swing, indicating 8x better.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe there is a common forum word for making claims that one's preferred way of roleplaying is objectively correct. It escapes me at the moment though.

He didn't do that. He provided a very logical and correct argument for why it was objectively bad. Bad doesn't become good just because people want it to be good.

 

[BoldItalic]

What if I said that it was objectively wrong to play a 5 INT as bookcase? Or galaxy? Or rotundly?

But here's my real argument. Sherlock Holmes is a genius, almost by definition. A 5 INT is not a genius. It's below average, by definition. Therefore, since a 5 INT cannot be a genius, and since Sherlock Holmes is a genius, it is objectively wrong to play a 5 INT as Sherlock Holmes.

What you and pemerton are getting at with the art comparisions, and largely agree, but those are in an entirely subjective world, where it is impossible to predict what is appealing to any given person. However, we're not in an entirely subjective world. Sherlock Holmes has been, at least for the sake of this argument, defined as a genius. A 5 INT, while lacking in specific definition, is clearly below average. Those two non-subjective facts mean that an objective determination can be made, at least in part. I can objectively say that within those premises, Sherlock Holmes, who is above average in intelligence, cannot have a 5 INT, which is below average.

Ah. I see now, thank you. We use the word "objectively" to mean different things.

I use "objective" to mean "relating to objects", that is, physically observable things, in contrast to "subjective" meaning "relating to abstract concepts that exist only in the subject's mind".

The distinction is useful to me because it is usually possible for people to come to an agreement about the properties of and relationships between physical objects, and talk about them as such. For example, we might each look at the same tree and agree that it is wooden. With abstractions, however, we cannot directly see what is in each others' minds and that puts a limit on what can be said about them.

There is another usage of the word "objective" that means "carefully unbiassed", for example a scientist might be said to be reporting objectively the results of an experiment if he does so honestly even if he doesn't like the results (for example, if they seem to disprove a favourite theory) but that is a different meaning of the word.

I'm unable to reconcile what you write in your posts with either of my definitions, so I'm asking for clarification of what you mean when you use the word.

Also, I think your reasoning is flawed but that can wait.

 

[BoldItalic]

I will now present an argument that Sherlock Holmes, as depicted in the stories, did indeed have an Int of 5. Personally, I find the argument compelling but that is a subjective judgment and you are free to click Laughs if your subjective judgement is to the contrary.

Suppose that there is a Detective class in 5e, that one of the class features is Expertise in Investigation, and that Sherlock Holmes, as the greatest ever detective, is an exemplar of level 20 in that class.

We know that Sherlock Holmes solved some very difficult cases but we don't know how many such cases he failed to solve because Conan Doyle carefully didn't write novels about those. For lack of data, we can't estimate probabilities. What we can say is that he didn't solve any that were nearly impossible because to have written stories where he pulled rabbits out of hats, so to speak, would have strained our credulity and Conan Doyle was careful to write credible stories.

So the most Sherlock Holmes ever did was to make DC29 on Intelligence(Investigation) rolls, and that must have been with a natural 20. He couldn't quite make DC30 (Nearly Impossible) however well he rolled. That means he must have been +9 for Intelligence+Investigation.

Given that he had Expertise in Investigation, which would have given him +12 at level 20, his Int modifier must have been -3.

So his Int must have been 4 or 5.

QED

 

[Sadras]

Good job [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION].
Well I'm convinced.

Thread End

 

[BoldItalic]

Good job [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION].
Well I'm convinced.

Thread End

Too soon! This is only post #999. We need one more to make the thread statistically insignificant

 

[Sadras]

Too soon! This is only post #999. We need one more to make the thread statistically insignificant

I was thinking the exact same thing, but you rushed to post your pièce de résistance!

And now we good.