D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

Second, I already posted an example upthread where the toughest dwarf around starts play with 16 STR and CON, and at 30th level has "only" 26 STR and 20 CON whereas the maximum stat at 30th level is 30, and the maximum STR/CON pair is 30/28. There is no in principle reason why, in my game, it couldn't have been a 16 INT detective rather than a 16 STR/CON tough guy.

Yes, and I ignored it because it was entirely irrelevant. Starting with a 16 at 1st level and raising it to max at 30th level isn't even remotely the same as having a 5 int at max level.

Sherlock Holmes might have started with a 16 before the time period of the books, and by the time he was max level in the books, he was maxed out for int. It doesn't matter how he got to the top. He IS at the top.

Third, I reject the NPC claim. In my game, there are not NPC dwarves out there who are tougher, other than perhaps Moradin; and other than divine beings its been clear since 15th level that there are no tougher dwarves, and indeed that has probably been true since 11th level. (Even though, at 11th level, the character had "only" 19 STR and (I think) 17 CON.)

If that's how you run your game, then that's how you run YOUR game. In the books, there is no such limitation on NPCs.

All of what I have just described could, in principle, be true of a detective PC. When it comes to actually playing a game of D&D, being the best detective around is not about holding up your character sheet and pointing to some numbers: it's about how the play of the game reveals your PC to be the best detective around. Of course those numbers (and other resources) written on the sheet are important as inputs to play; but they are not the outputs. The outputs are events in the shared fiction.

Yes, it is possible that if you add in limitations to NPCs to keep them from being high level AND you start your PC with a 16 (more than 3x the 5 we are discussing) AND you raise that stat religiously, you can be maxed out and the toughest/smartest by max level. Got it and I am not disputing it, especially since it has nothing to do with a conversation about a max level PC with a 5 in his prime stat.

Perhaps, for those who play in very detailed campaign settings (eg FR), where it is taken for granted that there are a whole host of NPCs who importance and deeds rivals those of the PCs, the above characterisation of D&D play does not resonate. Maybe, in such a game, it is obvious that even if - in play - the character with the 16 INT is the one who performs all the deductions, unravels all the dastardly plots, etc, there is nevertheless some NPC detective off screen who, if s/he had been on screen, would have done the same with even greater facility.

Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, pretty much all of campaign settings have high level NPCs. It's nonsensical for them not to. The PCs can't be everywhere at once and monsters would have wiped out every PC race a long time before the PCs were born if high level NPCs weren't around to stop them. One evil dragon could have wiped them all out.

Do you start your campaigns with no magic items in the world? After all, no high level NPCs means nobody of sufficient level to create them for the PCs to find. At least not anything powerful.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you don't know that 17 is +3 and 18 is +4, you need to play the game more. The barrier is firm because the game says that there is a firm barrier there. There is also one between every odd number and every even number for stats.

It really doesn't take a genius to know the difference between +3, +4 and +5, but okay.

But apparently it does to know the difference between a discrete step and a firm barrier...?

By "firm barrier" I meant, "Why is it ok for Sherlock to suffer the -1 going form 20 to 18, but not another -1 for going from 18 to 17? Why is being one point short of max ok, but two points is not?"

As for the "there is no such limitation on NPCs but if you want to run your game that way ok", I don't think you are understanding what he's saying. Neither is there a requirement that NPCs are statted the way you describe. You are taking something that is entirely up to the DMs judgment (i.e., how NPCs are statted) and somehow assuming that one option is the default, and all others are deviant. It isn't. It's your preference.

 

[Maxperson]

By "firm barrier" I meant, "Why is it ok for Sherlock to suffer the -1 going form 20 to 18, but not another -1 for going from 18 to 17? Why is being one point short of max ok, but two points is not?"

A +2 would be very noticeable from all the int checks an investigator does. It would be obvious over a relatively short period of time that a PC with a 16 is not as good as the 20 int NPC. The difference would only become more glaring as the int bonus drops for a PC. A +1 is not really noticeable.

As for the "there is no such limitation on NPCs but if you want to run your game that way ok", I don't think you are understanding what he's saying. Neither is there a requirement that NPCs are statted the way you describe. You are taking something that is entirely up to the DMs judgment (i.e., how NPCs are statted) and somehow assuming that one option is the default, and all others are deviant. It isn't. It's your preference.

3-18 is the starting stat range for the game world. NPCs would be in that range, with many starting at the maximum. Sure, the DM could make NPCs with no stats at all, but he would still be assigning bonuses and the intelligence of the NPC would be taken into consideration for an investigator.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A +2 would be very noticeable from all the int checks an investigator does. It would be obvious over a relatively short period of time that a PC with a 16 is not as good as the 20 int NPC. The difference would only become more glaring as the int bonus drops for a PC. A +1 is not really noticeable.

Utter complete nonsense, and made up out of thin air.

Do some math. The standard deviation of a d20 is nearly 6. The randomness of the dice would mask the statistical difference beyond what a human observer could detect, unless perhaps if the dice were rolled consecutively dozens of times in a deliberate test.

If you played side by side with the other character, but didn't know each other's scores and couldn't see each other's rolls, you'd be unable to reliably guess which one had the higher Int. Random variation, and especially good/bad luck at key moments, would be more likely to sway your perception than would any human-detectable pattern.

 

[Maxperson]

Utter complete nonsense, and made up out of thin air.

If by thin air you mean reason, then yes it was.

Do some math. The standard deviation of a d20 is nearly 6. The randomness of the dice would mask the statistical difference beyond what a human observer could detect, unless perhaps if the dice were rolled consecutively dozens of times in a deliberate test.

+5 is almost that entire deviation, where +3 is merely half. That's a very significant difference that will result in one of them succeeding much more often than the other.

If you played side by side with the other character, but didn't know each other's scores and couldn't see each other's rolls, you'd be unable to reliably guess which one had the higher Int. Random variation, and especially good/bad luck at key moments, would be more likely to sway your perception than would any human-detectable pattern.

Luck affects both roughly equally, so that's irrelevant. Randomness will also affect both roughly equally, so the +2 for the higher int will be absolutely huge when determining success and degree of success. Humans would spot that fairly easily.

 

[Guest 6801328]

+5 is almost that entire deviation, where +3 is merely half. That's a very significant difference that will result in one of them succeeding much more often than the other.

Get back to me when you understand why this sentence is nonsensical...

 

[Guest 6801328]

+5 is almost that entire deviation, where +3 is merely half.

I'm struggling with how to respond to this.

You don't seem to know what a standard deviation is, or what I was arguing in my last post.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm struggling with how to respond to this.

You don't seem to know what a standard deviation is, or what I was arguing in my last post.

Hey. You don't seem to understand how luck and randomness are not only the same, but affect both equally, so you're left with only the +2. Cut me some slack.

Anyway, since all else is equal, that +2 is huge in who succeeds and the degree of success. It would be very noticeable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, here's a demo to explain it. I just wrote a simple little program that generates a DC from 10 to 20 (in increments of 2) then rolls 2 d20, adding +7 to one and +9 to the other. (Proficiency bonus of 4, Ints of 16 and 20). Each row shows the DC, and then says "pass" or "fail" for each of the two rolls.

Can you tell me which column is the 16 Int and which is the 20 Int by looking at these results?

DC: 20 pass pass
DC: 12 fail pass
DC: 20 fail pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 12 fail pass
DC: 14 pass pass
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 16 fail fail
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 18 pass fail
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 14 pass pass
DC: 18 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 12 pass fail
DC: 18 fail pass
DC: 20 fail pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 14 pass fail
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 16 fail pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 12 pass fail
DC: 16 fail pass
DC: 12 pass fail
DC: 18 pass pass
DC: 12 fail pass
DC: 20 pass pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 18 pass pass
DC: 16 fail pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 16 pass fail
DC: 10 fail pass
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 16 fail fail
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 16 pass fail
DC: 14 pass pass
DC: 18 fail pass

Now imagine you're in a game where you roll a couple/few times per hour (we'll pretend it's an Investigation-heavy campaign). Without writing down and studying these results, are you telling me you're going to see a pattern?

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, here's a demo to explain it. I just wrote a simple little program that generates a DC from 10 to 20 (in increments of 2) then rolls 2 d20, adding +7 to one and +9 to the other. (Proficiency bonus of 4, Ints of 16 and 20). Each row shows the DC, and then says "pass" or "fail" for each of the two rolls.

Can you tell me which column is the 16 Int and which is the 20 Int by looking at these results?

DC: 20 pass pass
DC: 12 fail pass
DC: 20 fail pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 12 fail pass
DC: 14 pass pass
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 16 fail fail
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 18 pass fail
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 14 pass pass
DC: 18 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 12 pass fail
DC: 18 fail pass
DC: 20 fail pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 14 pass fail
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 16 fail pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 10 pass pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 12 pass fail
DC: 16 fail pass
DC: 12 pass fail
DC: 18 pass pass
DC: 12 fail pass
DC: 20 pass pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 18 pass pass
DC: 16 fail pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 16 pass fail
DC: 10 fail pass
DC: 16 pass pass
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 20 fail fail
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 16 fail fail
DC: 12 pass pass
DC: 16 pass fail
DC: 14 pass pass
DC: 18 fail pass

Now imagine you're in a game where you roll a couple/few times per hour (we'll pretend it's an Investigation-heavy campaign). Without writing down and studying these results, are you telling me you're going to see a pattern?

LOL Brilliantly done.

You need to provide the end rolls. Degree of deduction matters with Holmes and Holmes-like wannabees. Holmes and another will both succeed, he does it all the time with Scotland Yard detectives, but Holmes comes up with more much more info because he rolled better. Now, Holmes also does dozens and dozens of deductions per book, often doing several of them when he meets someone.

Your homework, should you choose to give me the proper info, is to run that test in two columns, with end rolls, for 50+ deductions. Holmes does that number easy in the short period of time that a book covers.

Edit: Pass/fail fails to convey what the game world NPCs will see. We need to see that one got a 16 and the other an 18. The NPCs see and hear the explanations of both, and know that the 18 is obviously giving more and clearer info, so succeeded better. The only way to do that here is for you to provide those numbers.