D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

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.

You're making the same mistake that pemerton was, which is confusing the roll on 3d6 for the ability score. The roll of 18 is six times greater than the roll of 3. The ability score of 18 is [undefined] times greater than an ability score of 3.

I say [undefined] because your math is flawed. For one, converting the ability score into an ability modifier changes the structure of the distribution and for two, 4 is actually -1 times greater than -4, not eight times greater. We can't actually say how many times greater the ability modifier of 4 is than -4, but we can say it's 8 steps greater, because ability modifiers are interval data.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure what the question was.



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.

And they don't say you can't shoot lasers from your eyeballs. I suppose you allow that, as well?

 

[iserith]

And they don't say you can't shoot lasers from your eyeballs. I suppose you allow that, as well?

A player is certainly welcome to have his or her character try to do that. Players describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions.

What some are suggesting in this thread is that some action declarations are off the table because Int 5. The rules don't say this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Interesting. However, I believe you'll find that using objective to mean 'dealing with facts in an unbiased way' is also a common definition of the word. I hadn't expected anyone to assume that it meant dealing only with physically existing things when the discussion is about intelligence, something that cannot be physically observed and can only be measured by inference. I looked at a few definitions from different sources, though, and it seems that the leading definition does alternate between my usage and your usage, although mine is in part of everyone definition block I can find while yours is missing from a few. It appears yours is more associated with medieval philosophy? I dunno, hadn't occurred to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

I'm uncertain how you came to the conclusion that Sherlock never did anything Nearly Impossible with his intelligence, given that many of the things he's accredited for were viewed as impossible to actually do, but, nevertheless, I concede that you since you're the author of this example you have the authority to set DCs however you want. That subjective setting, though, weakens your argument as you're now relying on your subjective appraisal of the difficulties presented Sherlock Holmes. However, that's not the bane of your argument.

The bane is that a single Investigation check does not cover the scope of the mental feats performed by Sherlock Holmes. You must also have expertise in every knowledge skill and be successful at straight intelligence ability checks for those situations that aren't covered by the skills. You postulate that single check as covering the scope of the abilities displayed by Sherlock Holmes, but that's clearly false. If you chose to run your adventures as a single skill check for success and then narrate out a complex story based on that single check, then I suppose that you can do that, but that strikes me as a singularly boring experience. Given that you can run such a game, I suppose that I must concede that, in the face of your custom class and desire to narrate an entire adventure based on a single roll that you've chosen the DC for arbitrarily, I suppose you can do that. I'm curious, though, what might constitution a nearly impossible mental feat of investigation is nothing Sherlock Holmes ever did was that difficult. Which genius of the class of Detective and possessing a 20 Intelligence solves that case for Sherlock? Given Sherlock only ever met one other person in his intellectual weight class, I'd like to know where all of the 11th level 20 Intelligence Detectives are that can easily match Sherlock's ability.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A player is certainly welcome to have his or her character try to do that. Players describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions.

What some are suggesting in this thread is that some action declarations are off the table because Int 5. The rules don't say this.

Now you've stoked my curiosity. Could you please share how you'd resolve the declaration of 'I shoot my eye lasers at the monster' when the character has no given ability to have eye lasers, but no rules declare he doesn't. How does that work out in Iserth's game?

It would seem that you'd be hoist on your own petard if you declare they cannot shoot eye lasers. The rules do not say that they cannot.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Regardless of how [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] may decide to resolve such a declaration in his game, I would like to point out that playing in bad faith is its own issue. And that may be part of the confusion here. You seem to be taking a stance that a player is acting in bad faith. Again, not speaking for him, but I actively avoid playing with those who tend to veer in that direction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Regardless of how [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] may decide to resolve such a declaration in his game, I would like to point out that playing in bad faith is its own issue. And that may be part of the confusion here. You seem to be taking a stance that a player is acting in bad faith. Again, not speaking for him, but I actively avoid playing with those who tend to veer in that direction.

As do I.

EDIT: but that's an excellent point.

 

[BoldItalic]

Interesting. However, I believe you'll find that using objective to mean 'dealing with facts in an unbiased way' is also a common definition of the word. I hadn't expected anyone to assume that it meant dealing only with physically existing things when the discussion is about intelligence, something that cannot be physically observed and can only be measured by inference. I looked at a few definitions from different sources, though, and it seems that the leading definition does alternate between my usage and your usage, although mine is in part of everyone definition block I can find while yours is missing from a few. It appears yours is more associated with medieval philosophy? I dunno, hadn't occurred to me.

I think I'm beginning to understand. When you wrote "I for one think that there are objectively bad ways to roleplay a 5 INT." am I right in thinking that you intending to convey that, in your belief, the badness of some particular ways of role-playing can be treated as a fact? Not just a judgement or an opinion, but a fact? Something that is verifiable by any observer who cares to check?

I can see that you would find it comforting to believe that, but it is not a belief that I share.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think I'm beginning to understand. When you wrote "I for one think that there are objectively bad ways to roleplay a 5 INT." am I right in thinking that you intending to convey that, in your belief, the badness of some particular ways of role-playing can be treated as a fact? Not just a judgement or an opinion, but a fact? Something that is verifiable by any observer who cares to check?

I can see that you would find it comforting to believe that, but it is not a belief that I share.

Unbiasedly based on facts. The fact that Sherlock Holmes has an above average intelligence paired with the fact that a 5 INT is below average objectively leads to the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes cannot have a 5 INT. By definition, even.