D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[BoldItalic]

Your "opinion" is wrong, according to the rules of 5E. As a comparison, a gorilla in 5E has an intelligence score of 6. No rational human being could believe that Sherlock Holmes has less intelligence than a gorilla.

In your opinion.

(edit - added)

I do not believe that Sherlock Holmes is less intelligent than a gorilla. But I do believe that he has a lower Int score than a gorilla. There is no inconsistency, because I also do not believe that a low Int score precludes intelligent behaviour.

My beliefs are self-consistent. They also consistent with my belief that I am a rational human being, though I'm not quite sure why that is important. If I was a clever dolphin with a chimpanzee assistant to do the typing, would you know the difference?

 

[RotGrub]

There is a third possibility between "mistake" and "bad faith", and that is "fun". Saying no isn't fun and doesn't create fun. It dampens creativity. It blocks.

I think not saying "No" can degrade the amount of fun for everyone at the table. I know my players have more fun when the story isn't being hijacked in an invalid direction.

 

[BoldItalic]

I think not saying "No" can degrade the amount of fun for everyone at the table. I know my players have more fun when the story isn't being hijacked in an invalid direction.

That's great, for you and your players. Horses for courses. Part of being a DM is knowing your players.

 

[RotGrub]

Your "opinion" is wrong, according to the rules of 5E. As a comparison, a gorilla in 5E has an intelligence score of 6. No rational human being could believe that Sherlock Holmes has less intelligence than a gorilla.

In D&D (2e), it used to be that Animal Intelligence had a value of 1.

In 5e, I don't think you can read anything insightful from a monster's intelligence score. INT scores are higher in 5e to facilitate saving throws.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sherlock Holmes is very intelligent, in Watson's opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact. Sherlock Holmes as a D&D character has an Int of 5, in my opinion. Not a fact either. Opinions are not facts.

All you can do with opinions is try to decide whether or not the person holding those opinions is self-consistent. You can't infer facts from them.

It is possible to believe, consistently, that

• Sherlock Holmes is highly intelligent
• Sherlock Holmes has a high Int score
• High Intelligence correlates closely with high Int scores

But it is also possible to believe, consistently, that

• Sherlock Holmes has a low Int score
• Sherlock Holmes is highly skilled at investigation
• High skill at investigation can offset a low Int score

None of those six beliefs is a fact and no facts can be deduced from them.

Reasoning with beliefs is different from reasoning with facts.

I've rarely ever been hit by a serious 'but I believe to disbelieve the evidence and instead provide my own narrative' argument outside of politics, and there it's at least understandable because worldviews are being challenged. Still, if you insist on having your own set of facts separate from the rest of us, I can't stop you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In your opinion.

(edit - added)

I do not believe that Sherlock Holmes is less intelligent than a gorilla. But I do believe that he has a lower Int score than a gorilla. There is no inconsistency, because I also do not believe that a low Int score precludes intelligent behaviour.

My beliefs are self-consistent. They also consistent with my belief that I am a rational human being, though I'm not quite sure why that is important. If I was a clever dolphin with a chimpanzee assistant to do the typing, would you know the difference?

Your belief sets up some counterintuitive results. I've pointed them out, like the sheer number of people better than Sherlock at detecting, that can perform nearly impossible feats of logic with their investigation skills while being only half the level of Sherlock. 18 INT and 11th level makes you strictly better than Sherlock in all thing intelligence. Your belief has the result that Sherlock cannot be one of the greatest detectives of all time because many others are better than him. Essentially, you're choosing to believe that the tales of Sherlock Holmes are false just so you can win at the internet.

I can grudgingly respect the sheer bloodymindedness that requires.

 

[BoldItalic]

I've rarely ever been hit by a serious 'but I believe to disbelieve the evidence and instead provide my own narrative' argument outside of politics, and there it's at least understandable because worldviews are being challenged. Still, if you insist on having your own set of facts separate from the rest of us, I can't stop you.

If you substitute the word "beliefs" for the word "facts" in the last sentence, I can happily agree with every word of that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you substitute the word "beliefs" for the word "facts" in the last sentence, I can happily agree with every word of that.

Well, then, I feel I must apologize for challenging your worldviews over something as trivial as a hobby.

 

[BoldItalic]

Your belief sets up some counterintuitive results. I've pointed them out, like the sheer number of people better than Sherlock at detecting, that can perform nearly impossible feats of logic with their investigation skills while being only half the level of Sherlock. 18 INT and 11th level makes you strictly better than Sherlock in all thing intelligence.

You are hypothesising people who are better at investigation than Sherlock Holmes. Whilst that might be a tenable hypothesis in general, there were no such people in the world described in the stories. They were not wanted by the author, so he didn't create them. So you can't use their existence as a premise to argue your point. They don't exist. Sherlock Holmes is unique.

Your belief has the result that Sherlock cannot be one of the greatest detectives of all time because many others are better than him.

No. See above. There are none better than him. Therefore my beliefs do not have that consequence and there is no problem.

I can grudgingly respect the sheer bloodymindedness that requires.

Thank you. And may I say that you yourself are admirably tenacious too.

 

[BoldItalic]

Well, then, I feel I must apologize for challenging your worldviews over something as trivial as a hobby.

Thank you, but there is really no need to apologize. I do not feel in any way threatened or uncomfortable. We have different beliefs; you have challenged mine and I have challenged yours and the net result is that we each recognize that we have different beliefs.

That's about the best outcome we could hope for, isn't it?