D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

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.


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

Aside from the fact that you can't cherrypick facts from a source ad hoc, meaning you can't have your cake and eat it, too, if Sherlock Holmes is the greatest detective, and unique (I supposed we've written Moriarty out of the tales... sad), then his ability would make him clearly above average, yes? If he's the best there is at investigation, then there cannot be anyone in D&D that can be 20th level, have expertise in Investigation, AND possess an INT of more than 3 (your call is that he's the top, and unique, so they cannot be equal to him, therefore a 3 or worse INT). Your construct becomes even more shabby at you have to continually heap additional restraints on the game system to accommodate your theory.

Your argument is a mess of special pleading.

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

I am obstinate in the face of bad logic, yes. I believe I've mentioned this particular failing of mine before in this thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Actually, I'd prefer a situation in which you just state your differing underlying beliefs, as in 'I reject on principle that there's an objectively bad way to roleplay a 5 INT,' rather than this hot mess of a confused argument about Sherlock Holmes. That's a particularly poor choice of hill to die on, if I'm allowed to say so. Just go back to 'I disagree' and drop that argument. We can very civilly and even cordially disagree on this (I don't harbor any negative feelings, and I'm not the least offended by people disagreeing with me) without the ridiculous argument you're presenting (I am offended, in general, not in particular, over really bad logical arguments).

 

[pemerton]

Game statistics tied to the value. You yourself mentioned how a given STR means you can lift a given amount, did you not? This is new information added to the ability score that is not present in the 3d6 roll. The 3d6 roll has not such information until and unless you transform it into an ability score. At that point, it loses it's rational nature, becomes ordinal or interval data (depending on application) and gains new meanings.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Frex. I roll 3d6. I get a 12. I know that 12 is 4 times a 3, and one more than 11. If I continue to roll 3d6, I get a set of numbers that I can run a statistical model on. The parameters of this model happens to have a nice normal distribution.

<snip>

I decide to play D&D. I assign my roll of 12 to CON. Now, I do not know that as 12 CON is four times a 3 CON. I have lost information. Depending on the edition, I do know that the difference between a 12 CON and an 11 CON is the same as between a 12 CON and a 13 CON, though (both are half steps towards a new bonus).

The relevance of all this to the present discussion is lost on me.

Yes, natural numbers have various properties and relationships to one another. But that is equally true of the numbers used to label IQ score eg if my IQ is 50, and yours 100, we can both note that 100 is twice 50, that 75 is as much greater than 50 as it is less than 100, etc.

Those observations about the properties of numbers tell us little or nothing about the relationship between my intelligence and yours. Similarly, the various observations you are making about the relationships between numbers generated by rolling 3d6 tell us little or nothing about ability scores in D&D, and the personal attributes that they notionally measure. That is why I am puzzled by your calling the association of mechanical stats with ability scores arbitrary. It's not arbitrary, as far as I can tell - the point of rolling scores is to establish those mechanical stats!

Bottom line: the likelihood of rolling an 18 on 3d6 is a bit less than .5%. There are IQ scores whose incidence in the population is, by definition, a bit less than .5%. If a player of D&D wants to say that rolling 18 for INT is a marker of having that degree of IQ, and puts forward as his/her reason for that that the likelihood of the dice roll result correlates to the incidence of the IQ score, that seems fine to me. If done accurately, this technique can be expected to yield a distribution of IQ scores among randomly generated D&D characters that at least approximates to the distribution of such scores in the general population.

The point that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] was making to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and others, though, is that in their attempt to make a move along these lines they have failed to achieve a correlation of likelihoods. The reply was that they are aware of this, but are prepared to tolerate errors in approximation. Hriston then pointed out that the errors are so significant that they cast the whole project (of treating INT as corresponding to IQ/10) into doubt.

3d6 doesn't measure anything. IQ attempts to rank intelligences, and so is a kind of measure (one that only says this is more than that as you go higher). So, how can you possibly compare the measurement of intelligence that is IQ to the total non-measurement of the 3d6 distribution?

The result of the 3d6 roll is a number, which is intended to be a type of measure - not a measure of the quantity of some determinable property that is present (as I posted already, that makes no sense) but a type of ranking measure where position in the rank also corresponds, roughly at least, to population frequency of that degree of ability/aptitude.

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.

I don't follow this either.

In D&D, being Sherlock Holmes is a consequence of action declaration and resolution. That is to say, the player can't just declare "I'm a genius who solves the mystery": rather, the GM frames the PC (and thereby the player) into some sort of challenging situation or other, the player declares action, adjudication takes place and we then learn what exactly has happened in the fiction.

If the player whose PC has 5 INT declares actions that turn upon intelligence, and the GM adjudicates them in such a way as the PC is revealed to be a genius, why is that the player's fault?

 

[pemerton]

There isn't overwhelming evidence that philosophers and lawyers, much less published writers, have a relevance when deciding the absolute meaning of irrational.

<snip>

you mentioning your philosophy and law and writing backgrounds were a poor argument for you conclusion.

It strikes me as obvious that if a certain professional group, whose day job includes debating reasons and reasoning and reasonableness, use the word "irrational" in a certain way that, ipso facto, that is a permissible use.

Similarly, if physicists use the words "force" or "work" in a certain way, I would regard that as sufficient to establish a permissible use.

You seem to disagree. I don't know why.

(I don't know what you mean by absolute meaning, by the way - it's not a technical term I'm familiar with - but I have been talking about permissible use.)

 

[BoldItalic]

Aside from the fact that you can't cherrypick facts from a source ad hoc, meaning you can't have your cake and eat it, too, if Sherlock Holmes is the greatest detective, and unique (I supposed we've written Moriarty out of the tales... sad), then his ability would make him clearly above average, yes?

Yes, in the context of the stories.

If he's the best there is at investigation, then there cannot be anyone in D&D that can be 20th level, have expertise in Investigation, AND possess an INT of more than 3 (your call is that he's the top, and unique, so they cannot be equal to him, therefore a 3 or worse INT).

Yes, in D&D there can. Just, not in the stories.

Your construct becomes even more shabby at you have to continually heap additional restraints on the game system to accommodate your theory.

I haven't (see above) so it isn't.

Your argument is a mess of special pleading.

I disagree, but it's a matter of opinion, so we needn't debate the point.

I am obstinate in the face of bad logic, yes. I believe I've mentioned this particular failing of mine before in this thread.

Some would say that it's not a failing but a virtue.

 

[BoldItalic]

Actually, I'd prefer a situation in which you just state your differing underlying beliefs, as in 'I reject on principle that there's an objectively bad way to roleplay a 5 INT,' rather than this hot mess of a confused argument about Sherlock Holmes.

I tried that. People argued. That brought us here. To reach this point, we had to discover that you and I use the word "objective" differently and then, in trying to clear that up, we discovered that you and I use the the word "fact" differently. I'm not sure who first introduced Sherlock Holmes as an example in this thread, but it wasn't me^*. It was useful, though, in uncovering the roots of our disagreement.

I would prefer it if you would you accept, as an objective fact, that Sherlock Holmes had an Int of 5. I don't imagine for a moment that you will, but nevertheless that is my preference. It would save me so much typing.

---

^* Actually, I've done a search and I think it was me, in post #137. Well, well. My memory isn't what it was.

 

[cmad1977]

Just glancing at a few of the posts here convinces me that the INT score of the most active posters is well below average.

 

[BoldItalic]

Just glancing at a few of the posts here convinces me that the INT score of the most active posters is well below average.

We're all role-playing Int 5.

At least, I am. Isn't everyone else?

 

[Manbearcat]

In my experience it's a little bit more than that, and relates both to @Manbearcat's recent post upthread and @Ovinomancer's reference to playing a 5 INT PC as Sherlock Holmes.

In my experience, RPGers try to bring their PCs' mechanical strengths to bear upon the fictional situation. In practice, that tends to mean that if INT and knowledge skills are not all that good, they will tend to opt for other sorts of solutions. And because many RPGs tend to make physical and/or violent solutions more feasible than they might tend to be in real life (in this respect, fantasy RPGs have genre resemblances to superhero comics, action adventure stories, etc), those other sorts of solutions are often available.

As a result, I tend to find it is fairly clear in play who is the cerebral character (often also the wizard, but not universally) and who is not.

In D&D, being Sherlock Holmes is a consequence of action declaration and resolution. That is to say, the player can't just declare "I'm a genius who solves the mystery": rather, the GM frames the PC (and thereby the player) into some sort of challenging situation or other, the player declares action, adjudication takes place and we then learn what exactly has happened in the fiction.

If the player whose PC has 5 INT declares actions that turn upon intelligence, and the GM adjudicates them in such a way as the PC is revealed to be a genius, why is that the player's fault?

In the last 1-30 game of 4e I ran, the Human Rogue character was built as an Artful Dodger w/ a Duelist suite of powers/feats, Secrets of the City At-Will Utility, Mariner Theme, Bard Multi-class/Bardic Knowledge/Connected feats, and Jack-of-all-Trades Paragon Path. His Dex and Cha were huge. In an urban environment, he could sub his ridiculous Streetwise check for every relevant investigation/knowledge check (and roll twice!). He could reroll any skill check he wanted 1/encounter. He could AP for + 5 skill checks to a pair of action declarations. He was Trained in 11/17 skills. All of his skills had absurd modifiers.

Every scene on a ship, in a fight, and in the wilderness, he was the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Every scene in the city he was Sherlock Holmes.

Every scene anywhere he was MacGyver.

It was virtually impossible for the group to suffer a story loss by "losing a scene (Skill Challenge)" due to the potency of this character in noncombat conflict resolution. Whats more, because of this suite of PC build resources, I'm obliged to frame him into scenes and fail forward (soft failures mid-challenge) in ways that reflect these archetypes (and the stakes, of course).

Through Paragon tier, he had a 14 Int. By level 18, the Eladrin F/M (Bladesinger) had a 23 Int (+2 mod vs +6) when the Rogue had that 14.

There is another example in my current Dungeon World game. The Arcane Duelist (basically a Bladesinger) has a maxed (18 Int) which provides a + 3 bonus to Int-derived moves. Due to this on most Spout Lore moves, I'm obliged to tell him something useful and interesting about his present situation (or let him tell me). On pretty much all the rest, he at least gets something interesting. The Ranger's Int is average, but she possesses the move Decades of Experience which allows her to come up with useful knowledge whenever a PC consults her on something. The PC gains +1 forward when acting on it, and she marks xp. She is also extraordinarily insightful and perceptive (18 Wis) which augments all manner of stuff with a successful Discern Realities move.

Long story short (too late!); in the crucible of GM framing, PC action declarations, and engagement with the resolution mechanics (which interface with extra-Int PC build components) will we find out if a PC has a legitimate claim to the Dread Pirate Roberts/Sherlock Holmes archetypes.

The rest is social contract (again, this is sounding an awful lot like the "Paladin" social contract issue with a different coat of paint).

 

[Maxperson]

Given this, when a player says "I want to shoot eye lasers at the monster..." - a description of what the player wants to do - what is the next step? Once you have considered this, please consider this other description of what the player wants to do:

I tell him he fails and then after the game I let him know in a one-on-one that disruptive game play will not be tolerated. If he continues to disrupt the game like that he will be asked to leave.