D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[pemerton]

Your argument fails to address one very, very important point that he made to you. Holmes is considered to be the best investigator. The pinnacle of what is possible. Your 5 int Holmes can become very good, but he can never, ever be the pinnacle of what is possible, because a 20 int PC with all of those ability will be better.

In the real world, a d20 roll with mods generated from a 20 INT can do better than a d20 roll with mods generated from a 5 INT.

But the issue of whether or not Holmes is the best isn't a question about the real world; it's a question about the fiction. In the fiction, perhaps the 5 INT Holmes nevertheless is the best (due to the luck of dice rolls, the vagaries of fictional position, etc).

 

[pemerton]

What you are ignoring is that he has to solve it as the character itself would solve the puzzle and not as the player would solve it. That means that a stupid PC might not be able to solve it, even if the player could.

I'll only quote this, as it gets to the core of the matter.

Gygax is explaining why he prefers "role assumption" to "role playing". As he characterises role assumption, it is an identity of player situation and character situation. So the sort of contrast you posit between player and character is already at odds with the approach that Gygax is advocating.

EDIT: Also, when Gygax talks about theatrics he isn't talking about performing according to a script. He is contrasting pretending to be someone - what he calls "role playing" in the narrow sense, or "theatrics" - with actually being someone, or in the same situation as someone, which he calls "role assumption".

He is not drawing a contrast between scripting and improv.

 

[BoldItalic]

In the real world, a d20 roll with mods generated from a 20 INT can do better than a d20 roll with mods generated from a 5 INT.

But the issue of whether or not Holmes is the best isn't a question about the real world; it's a question about the fiction. In the fiction, perhaps the 5 INT Holmes nevertheless is the best (due to the luck of dice rolls, the vagaries of fictional position, etc).

Indeed. And a thing that is impossible in one fictional world may nonetheless be possible in another.

In 5e, it is quite possible to have a character who is better at solving crimes than Sherlock Holmes even though that would not be possible in the world described by Conan Doyle.

In a novel that Conan Doyle did not write, Sherlock Holmes was summoned to Faerûn to investigate the Case of the Colourless Dragon; he failed utterly and it was later solved by the renowned gnome investigator Tom Whatnott. Sherlock Holmes, his reputation tarnished, then tried to make a living as a violinist in Waterdeep but was arrested for performing in public without a permit from the Bards' Guild and teleported back to Baker Street in disgrace. Watson ascribed the whole fantastic tale to his friend's opium habit and the whole thing was hushed up.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, sir, I will agree our opinions differ. One is an attempt at honest discourse and the other is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen,

That's it. We expect you to be ladies and gentlemen.

A few of you are failing in that expectation. You are being rude to each other. If you are so attached to your point that you are willing to make public personal attacks, you have lost the perspective that we are talking about how to pretend to be elves. Keep it civil, people. Play nice.

Further such issues in the thread are apt to get people banned, and possibly get the thread closed as an attractive nuisance.

 

[Maxperson]

In the real world, a d20 roll with mods generated from a 20 INT can do better than a d20 roll with mods generated from a 5 INT.

When you're playing D&D, that is also true. Modeling Holmes in D&D means that you have to take the best rolls, the best int and all possible modifiers into consideration when figuring out whether your model is the best or not. If your result is less than the best, you have failed to model Holmes

But the issue of whether or not Holmes is the best isn't a question about the real world; it's a question about the fiction. In the fiction, perhaps the 5 INT Holmes nevertheless is the best (due to the luck of dice rolls, the vagaries of fictional position, etc).

There are no rolls in the books. In the books, he is flat out the best based on intelligence and skill. When trying to model the best in a game, choosing less than the best is not modeling Holmes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you are conflating the formal D&D attribute "Intelligence" with the everyday word "intelligence" (the meaning of which itself is hotly debated). While certainly there are similarities, and the D&D term was chosen to help with mnemonics, the formal D&D term refers to a specific set of mechanical effects, none of which mention the word "genius".

Ah, but I do not accept your definitions. I do not accept that the kind of intelligence that Sherlock Holmes displays is the same kind of intelligence that the Int score in 5e represents. You confuse the two and that leads you to one belief, I distinguish the two and that leads me to the opposite belief.

Same question for both of you, then: if INT in D&D doesn't mean what the most common understanding of intelligence is, what does it mean? You've both suggested that, absent any such statements in any version of D&D, that the meaning of INT in D&D differs from what people generally mean when speaking of intelligence outside of D&D. Since there's no source of such a distinction in the D&D material, it's on you to show that INT does mean something different.

Here's how the SRD defines Intelligence:

Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

Here's how Wiki introduces intelligence:

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment.

Those are pretty darn similar. I don't see a major difference, or at least one that would mean that D&D's use of Intelligence is different from the common understanding of intelligence. So, please, show your work. What definition of intelligence are you using for the INT ability score, how do you determine that this meaning was intended, and where is your support for this claim? Because, as of right now, the argument that D&D INT isn't meant to be like the normal use of intelligence seems to be balderdash.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In the real world, a d20 roll with mods generated from a 20 INT can do better than a d20 roll with mods generated from a 5 INT.

But the issue of whether or not Holmes is the best isn't a question about the real world; it's a question about the fiction. In the fiction, perhaps the 5 INT Holmes nevertheless is the best (due to the luck of dice rolls, the vagaries of fictional position, etc).

You're actually going with the assumption that Sherlock Holmes' fiction world was peopled with individuals with either very low INT and/or extremely bad luck such that only Sherlock Holmes was capable of being smart/lucky enough to be the best detective?

I really don't know what to do with that.

 

[TwoSix]

You're actually going with the assumption that Sherlock Holmes' fiction world was peopled with individuals with either very low INT and/or extremely bad luck such that only Sherlock Holmes was capable of being smart/lucky enough to be the best detective?

I really don't know what to do with that.

The other people are merely background, they have no relevant stats. The game is not (or at least, certainly doesn't have to be) a simulation. If Sherlock Holmes consistently rolls high on Intelligence checks, then in the fiction it's certainly plausible that he is actually quite intelligent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The other people are merely background, they have no relevant stats. The game is not (or at least, certainly doesn't have to be) a simulation. If Sherlock Holmes consistently rolls high on Intelligence checks, then in the fiction it's certainly plausible that he is actually quite intelligent.

We have differing definitions of the word 'plausible.' Sherlock Holmes isn't set in a fantasy world, it's set in a world that, while fictional, is a mirror of ours at the time. Sherlock is better than the police, and is only rivaled by one person in the entire milieu -- Moriarty. Advancing an argument that the reality of that fiction is that everyone else is just dumber or unluckier is a very bold claim, and requires some bold evidence to take seriously. I can claim that Sherlock was the best because he kept a rainbow-farting unicorn secreted in his closet that could make meaningful comparisons between 3d6 distributions and the as-yet-invented IQ distribution and this magical power allowed him to bend reality in ways that appear to us non-unicorn owning people as brilliance, genius, and an unsurpassed ability to deduce. That's hogwash, though, and so is claiming that Sherlock only appeared intelligence because the other characters were dumb or just plain really unlucky.

We're at the point in the argument that people are presenting outlandish claims just to try to hold onto the shred of an argument. All that's needed is to say, "look, I don't care, I'm going to run my games my way because I find that more fun." That's fine, I have no argument with that at all. What I have an argument with is people asserting things that are clearly outlandish. Having Tea and No Tea simultaneously was a hilarious way to bypass the paranoid android (obscure reference), but it lacks utility in the real world.

 

[TwoSix]

We have differing definitions of the word 'plausible.' Sherlock Holmes isn't set in a fantasy world, it's set in a world that, while fictional, is a mirror of ours at the time. Sherlock is better than the police, and is only rivaled by one person in the entire milieu -- Moriarty. Advancing an argument that the reality of that fiction is that everyone else is just dumber or unluckier is a very bold claim, and requires some bold evidence to take seriously. I can claim that Sherlock was the best because he kept a rainbow-farting unicorn secreted in his closet that could make meaningful comparisons between 3d6 distributions and the as-yet-invented IQ distribution and this magical power allowed him to bend reality in ways that appear to us non-unicorn owning people as brilliance, genius, and an unsurpassed ability to deduce. That's hogwash, though, and so is claiming that Sherlock only appeared intelligence because the other characters were dumb or just plain really unlucky.

The real world is immaterial. We're talking about someone like a Sherlock Holmes analogue in a D&D world, and whether or not an Int 5 character could be played in a way that made the character appear to be an extremely competent detective. When one considers the rather low mechanical impact that Intelligence has in 5e, it's certainly a feasible proposition. It would certainly be easier with a high Intelligence, but that isn't really the debate.

[We're at the point in the argument that people are presenting outlandish claims just to try to hold onto the shred of an argument.

People are posting because that's what people do. You don't actually think you can somehow win this debate, do you? That's probably the most outlandish expectation in the whole thread!

All that's needed is to say, "look, I don't care, I'm going to run my games my way because I find that more fun." That's fine, I have no argument with that at all. What I have an argument with is people asserting things that are clearly outlandish. Having Tea and No Tea simultaneously was a hilarious way to bypass the paranoid android (obscure reference), but it lacks utility in the real world.

I'm guessing you're not making a Radiohead reference?