D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

Why don't you just ask to see their character sheets, so you can point out how obvious it is that one of them has a higher Int? "Look! This one has a 17 and this one has an 18!" Of course you can figure out who has a higher bonus by looking at the dice rolls, but that's irrelevant because we are talking about impact on game outcomes, and for that all that matters is pass or fail. Fact.

Tiered DCs are of course permissible, but a few posts ago you were dismissing pemerton's argument because his NPC's weren't RAW, so I shall do the same here. Likewise with your use of rules from previous editions: irrelevant.

So with this you're saying that it's impossible to make a Holmes or Holmes-like PC in 5e, because Holmes had tiered answers that were better than other detectives' successes. Without tiered DC's, a Holmes like character can't be made.

 

[Maxperson]

Suppose you are sitting next to a player who is role-playing Sherlock Holmes. He is playing in such a way as to focus all his actions on investigating a crime.

You can't see his character sheet but you can watch his dice rolls. You notice that when he rolls for an Intelligence(Investigation) check, the result he announces to the DM is +9 on the dice roll.

You don't know whether or not he has proficiency or expertise in Investigation and you don't know his character level so you don't know his proficiency bonus anyway. The contribution from proficiency could be anywhere between zero and +12 so the contribution from his Int modifier could be anywhere between -3 and +9.

What is his Int score? All you can say is that it must be somewhere between 4 and 29.

I doesn't matter. +9 is far from the best, so he isn't playing Sherlock Holmes. 20th level proficiency + 20 int is better than that without adding in the extras.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So with this you're saying that it's impossible to make a Holmes or Holmes-like PC in 5e, because Holmes had tiered answers that were better than other detectives' successes. Without tiered DC's, a Holmes like character can't be made.

1) Yes, I will agree that 5e is insufficient to model the fictional writings of A. C. Doyle. I would go so far as to say that I've never seen an RPG that can fully model works of fiction, even in cases where they are specifically intended to do so.

2) But that's not really what we were discussing, or what this thread was about. It's not even relevant to support any of the arguments put forth in this thread.

3) If, despite the limitations in the mechanics, you tried to create a Holmes-like character anyway, it would of course be a good idea to get his Investigation (and probably Insight and Arcana and Deception) as high as possible, both through proficiencies and ability scores.

4) That said, the difference between a skill modifier of X and (X - 1) is going to be indistinguishable to a human observer in normal play, and by the same logic the difference between (X - 1) and (X - 2) is going to be indistinguishable. And by following that logic to its conclusion (which is not a Slippery Slope by the technical definition) you have to conclude that it's possible, although perhaps quite challenging, to play a Holmes-like character with 5 Int.

Oh, and...

5) Therefore, while an ability score has an impact on outcomes of actions in the game, the decision to roleplay a given stat is effectively arbitrary, and there is no right way or wrong way to do it.

Q.E.F.D.

 

[Maxperson]

1) Yes, I will agree that 5e is insufficient to model the fictional writings of A. C. Doyle. I would go so far as to say that I've never seen an RPG that can fully model works of fiction, even in cases where they are specifically intended to do so.

2) But that's not really what we were discussing, or what this thread was about. It's not even relevant to support any of the arguments put forth in this thread.

We're discussing modeling Holmes in 5e OR a PC that his Holmes-like, and therefore built the same as Holmes.

3) If, despite the limitations in the mechanics, you tried to create a Holmes-like character anyway, it would of course be a good idea to get his Investigation (and probably Insight and Arcana and Deception) as high as possible, both through proficiencies and ability scores.

]

It would be equally good to make him an 18+ on int as well, since less than that is not Holmes-like.

4) That said, the difference between a skill modifier of X and (X - 1) is going to be indistinguishable to a human observer in normal play, and by the same logic the difference between (X - 1) and (X - 2) is going to be indistinguishable. And by following that logic to its conclusion (which is not a Slippery Slope by the technical definition) you have to conclude that it's possible, although perhaps quite challenging, to play a Holmes-like character with 5 Int.

Your logic results in 1 of 2 things. 1) You are ultimately comparing a -3 to a +5, which is +8 difference for the 20 int PC and it is absurdly easy to notice that he's better than the 5 int, in which case that is a Slipper Slope. Your argument becoming more and more absurd as you reach 5. 2) You are ultimately comparing a -2 to a -3 and saying that you can't tell the difference, which is true, but has nothing to do with being a Holmes-like character. Since you declare that your conclusion shows that a 5 int Holmes-like PC is possible, you went with #1 and are engaged in a fallacy and your logic is invalid.

5) Therefore, while an ability score has an impact on outcomes of actions in the game, the decision to roleplay a given stat is effectively arbitrary, and there is no right way or wrong way to do it.

Yes there is. If you are at my table, you will be wrong if you roleplay a 5 int as a genius. The table makes the rules. You can do it differently at your table, but you will still be ignoring the rules when you do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes there is. If you are at my table, you will be wrong if you roleplay a 5 int as a genius. The table makes the rules.

That I can agree with. One thing I've learned from these forums is that there are many different interpretations of "roleplaying", and while some of them seem dreadfully dull and rote to me, as long as people are having fun it's all good.

You can do it differently at your table, but you will still be ignoring the rules when you do.

But this is just patently false. As long as the low Int character is correctly adding the -3 modifier, the rules are being followed.

I think I'm done with this debate. It's clear that despite several attempts to explain it in different ways you understand neither the math nor the logic, and I'm increasingly convinced that you don't want to.

 

[pemerton]

The game gives numbers and DCs. The PCs and NPCs of the world use those numbers and DCs to determine who is best. The results are played out in the game world.

Why don't you just ask to see their character sheets, so you can point out how obvious it is that one of them has a higher Int? "Look! This one has a 17 and this one has an 18!" Of course you can figure out who has a higher bonus by looking at the dice rolls, but that's irrelevant because we are talking about impact on game outcomes

In the OotS, the PCs and NPCs use the numbers on their character sheets to "determine who is best".

OotS is generally considered a parody.

As I play D&D, the numbers on the character sheet or the monster stat block are not, themselves, elements of the fiction. They are mechanical devices used by real people in the real world to generate outcomes in the fiction. It is those outcomes that establish whether or not, in the fiction, a certain character is Holmes-like. There is no requirement, to generate such outcomes, that the character have any particular numbers written on the character sheet or stat block.

I am not saying that the way I play is the only way. In fact, clearly this thread has demonstrated that there are some D&D players who think the numbers on a sheet or in a stat block are more important than the actual events of play. But that way is not more canonical than my preferred approach.

 

[Maxperson]

I think I'm done with this debate. It's clear that despite several attempts to explain it in different ways you understand neither the math nor the logic, and I'm increasingly convinced that you don't want to.

Considering that you just argued that a -3 is indistinguishable from a +5, and you have stated that you think Holmes should have a high intelligence, yet are arguing that Holmes can have a 5, you might want to look at that mirror next to you.

 

[Maxperson]

In the OotS, the PCs and NPCs use the numbers on their character sheets to "determine who is best".

OotS is generally considered a parody.

Yes. It's an exaggeration of the truths of the game. Of course, I'm not talking about the characters in the game knowing numbers, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

As I play D&D, the numbers on the character sheet or the monster stat block are not, themselves, elements of the fiction. They are mechanical devices used by real people in the real world to generate outcomes in the fiction. It is those outcomes that establish whether or not, in the fiction, a certain character is Holmes-like. There is no requirement, to generate such outcomes, that the character have any particular numbers written on the character sheet or stat block.

They are directly tied to the elements of fiction, though. An 18 strength is more than +4. It also directly causes the fiction that the character is very strong. Most mechanics are not divorced from the fluff/fiction. They are tied to it.

The medusa stat block says that her gaze attack can turn you to stone. The fiction says her gaze turns people to stone. If we are to believe your claim above, I could write that the fiction was that her gaze makes people giggle and keep the gaze attack that turns people to stone, because the stat block is not the fiction.

I am not saying that the way I play is the only way. In fact, clearly this thread has demonstrated that there are some D&D players who think the numbers on a sheet or in a stat block are more important than the actual events of play. But that way is not more canonical than my preferred approach.

I disagree. Your way is not much more than a small blurb in the rulebook. My way is how the rest of the rules are written and and affect play.

 

[pemerton]

They are directly tied to the elements of fiction, though. An 18 strength is more than +4. It also directly causes the fiction that the character is very strong. Most mechanics are not divorced from the fluff/fiction. They are tied to it.

If the player of the character with an 18 STR never declares any actions that involve and demonstrate that STR - never carries anything, never picks anything up, never kicks in a door - then in what sense, in the fiction, is that character the strongest one around?

A character establishes that s/he is strong by performing feats of STR. Similarly, a character establishes that s/he is Holmes-like by performing feats of deduction, and thereby solving mysteries.

The medusa stat block says that her gaze attack can turn you to stone. The fiction says her gaze turns people to stone. If we are to believe your claim above, I could write that the fiction was that her gaze makes people giggle and keep the gaze attack that turns people to stone, because the stat block is not the fiction.

I don't understand - this makes no sense at all.

Here's a better example (or, at least, an example that I can follow): if the medusa's description says that her gaze turns victims to stone, but in fact - in my campaign - multiple people engage in staring contests with the medusa and not one is petrified - then the description has turned out to be false. It was at best a statement of aspiration or of tendency.

 

[Maxperson]

If the player of the character with an 18 STR never declares any actions that involve and demonstrate that STR - never carries anything, never picks anything up, never kicks in a door - then in what sense, in the fiction, is that character the strongest one around?

A character establishes that s/he is strong by performing feats of STR. Similarly, a character establishes that s/he is Holmes-like by performing feats of deduction, and thereby solving mysteries.

There is no need for the PC to ever do a strength feat at all in order for his great strength to be a part of the fiction.

Barmaid: "Ooooh! You're just all muscle now, aren't you? What's big, strong man like you want to drink?"

In the fiction and he's never done a single strength based action around her.

Here's a better example (or, at least, an example that I can follow): if the medusa's description says that her gaze turns victims to stone, but in fact - in my campaign - multiple people engage in staring contests with the medusa and not one is petrified - then the description has turned out to be false. It was at best a statement of aspiration or of tendency.

A reasonable DM would just turn them to stone without a save, or else give them a save and have that save represent turning their gaze aside involuntarily.