D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Giant2005]

Ask yourselves if you were statting up characters of fiction, how would you rate their intelligence - Would you necessarily give Hodor a low Intelligence? Would you necessarily give Sherock Holmes a high Intelligence?

If the answer is yes to those questions and you choose to interpret your character's Intelligence score differently, it isn't because you don't consider Intelligence to mean intelligence, but because you wanted an easy dump stat and don't want to have to deal with the connotations involved with dumping that stat.

 

[TwoSix]

Ask yourselves if you were statting up characters of fiction, how would you rate their intelligence - Would you necessarily give Hodor a low Intelligence? Would you necessarily give Sherock Holmes a high Intelligence?

If the answer is yes to those questions and you choose to interpret your character's Intelligence score differently, it isn't because you don't consider Intelligence to mean intelligence, but because you wanted an easy dump stat and don't want to have to deal with the connotations involved with dumping that stat.

That's making a pretty broad assumption that I build my character by starting with a story concept, and then try to make the mechanics fit the concept. I build most of my characters around a mechanical concept, and then I fit the story elements around that mechanical skeleton. That's why it's useful to have multiple approaches to concepts like stats in my back pocket; I broaden the number of possible stories I can attach to my mechanics.

 

[Giant2005]

That's making a pretty broad assumption that I build my character by starting with a story concept, and then try to make the mechanics fit the concept. I build most of my characters around a mechanical concept, and then I fit the story elements around that mechanical skeleton. That's why it's useful to have multiple approaches to concepts like stats in my back pocket; I broaden the number of possible stories I can attach to my mechanics.

That is how I make a character, so I can relate. However what you are stating is your process is different to the process you are describing.
An Int score whether high or low is part of your mechanics. Ignoring the story-related consequences of that mechanic isn't building a character around the mechanics - it is the opposite: it is building a character in spite of the mechanics.

 

[TwoSix]

That is how I make a character, so I can relate. However what you are stating is your process is different to the process you are describing.
An Int score whether high or low is part of your mechanics. Ignoring the story-related consequences of that mechanic isn't building a character around the mechanics - it is the opposite: it is building a character in spite of the mechanics.

That's still only applicable if you believe a stat means anything beyond how it impacts the rolls. I don't.

 

[Giant2005]

That's still only applicable if you believe a stat means anything beyond how it impacts the rolls. I don't.

Does your opinion also stand to the opposite end of the spectrum?
For example, you have a 20 Int character that does not have proficiency in any Int-related skills. As a consequence, he barely has a 50:50 chance at success with a medium difficulty task that is intelligence-based.
Does the fact that he has reached the limits of potential for human intelligence inspire you to play him as the genius that his unparalleled levels of intelligence suggest he is, or does the fact that he is barely adequate at not particularly intelligence-based tasks inspire you to play him as someone of average intelligence?

 

[TwoSix]

Does your opinion also stand to the opposite end of the spectrum?
For example, you have a 20 Int character that does not have proficiency in any Int-related skills. As a consequence, he barely has a 50:50 chance at success with a medium difficulty task that is intelligence-based.
Does the fact that he has reached the limits of potential for human intelligence inspire you to play him as the genius that his unparalleled levels of intelligence suggest he is, or does the fact that he is barely adequate at not particularly intelligence-based tasks inspire you to play him as someone of average intelligence?

Of course. Although, I reject the construct that Int 20 is the "limit of potential of human intelligence". That's a narrative concept being layered on a mechanical concept that doesn't require it. All Int 20 indicates is that the character has a higher probability of success on learning and memory related checks, higher fluency in languages, and greater facility with wizard magic.

Considering there's little reason to have an Int 20 if you aren't a wizard, I'd probably narrate an Int 20 wizard with no knowledge skills as some sort of self-trained or loosely trained arcane savant, who picks up magical rituals and the esoterica behind them easily, but has little practical knowledge of how those concepts work or any sort of context to put them in. Feels like more of an evocation sort, or maybe illusion.

Or a possessed kind of character might be fun. Like an orc, who picked up some relic of a long-dead necromancer, whose soul takes up residence in the orc's body. The necromancer's soul gives the orc knowledge of and great facility with magical techniques, and he often gets flashes of the necromancer's memories, but not enough to really make up for his barbaric upbringing.

Hmm, that sounds pretty fun, actually. Might have to think about that one.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Does your opinion also stand to the opposite end of the spectrum?
For example, you have a 20 Int character that does not have proficiency in any Int-related skills. As a consequence, he barely has a 50:50 chance at success with a medium difficulty task that is intelligence-based.
Does the fact that he has reached the limits of potential for human intelligence inspire you to play him as the genius that his unparalleled levels of intelligence suggest he is, or does the fact that he is barely adequate at not particularly intelligence-based tasks inspire you to play him as someone of average intelligence?

This is actually a really great argument (proof, even?) that Int is not what many people insist it is. That even with a 20 Int if you don't also have proficiencies then you're really not especially good at anything. That on tasks that require "recall of memory, etc." (whatever the PHB says Int measures) you actually aren't noticeably talented compared to somebody with 10 Int + Proficiency.

 

[Maxperson]

Does your opinion also stand to the opposite end of the spectrum?
For example, you have a 20 Int character that does not have proficiency in any Int-related skills. As a consequence, he barely has a 50:50 chance at success with a medium difficulty task that is intelligence-based.
Does the fact that he has reached the limits of potential for human intelligence inspire you to play him as the genius that his unparalleled levels of intelligence suggest he is, or does the fact that he is barely adequate at not particularly intelligence-based tasks inspire you to play him as someone of average intelligence?

The premise is flawed. A 20 int PC can go up to int based problems that he has NEVER seen or heard of and solve them with a fair amount of reliability. Heck, he can succeed at a DC 25 check have never once seen or heard of the very hard int based issue. That's genius. You couldn't go up to a calculus problem knowing only basic math and have a shot of success like the 20 int PC.

Trained he's even better.

 

[pemerton]

A 20 int PC can go up to int based problems that he has NEVER seen or heard of and solve them with a fair amount of reliability.

Just to be clear: are you saying that a 20 INT character can know that William the Conqueror's reign in England began in 1066; or can know that the Nile is the longest river in the world; even if s/he has never encountered those facts before?

That seems odd to me (and in discussing the first "knowledge check" mechanic in the game, thieves' Read Languages ability, Gygax said (DMG p 20) that "This ability assumes that the language is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable").

Ask yourselves if you were statting up characters of fiction, how would you rate their intelligence - Would you necessarily give Hodor a low Intelligence? Would you necessarily give Sherock Holmes a high Intelligence?

If the answer is yes to those questions and you choose to interpret your character's Intelligence score differently, it isn't because you don't consider Intelligence to mean intelligence, but because you wanted an easy dump stat and don't want to have to deal with the connotations involved with dumping that stat.

Does your opinion also stand to the opposite end of the spectrum?
For example, you have a 20 Int character that does not have proficiency in any Int-related skills. As a consequence, he barely has a 50:50 chance at success with a medium difficulty task that is intelligence-based.
Does the fact that he has reached the limits of potential for human intelligence inspire you to play him as the genius that his unparalleled levels of intelligence suggest he is, or does the fact that he is barely adequate at not particularly intelligence-based tasks inspire you to play him as someone of average intelligence?

There are at least two things going on here that I find puzzling.

One: what does it mean to "play a character as a a genius with unparalleled levels of intelligence" if you have only a 50/50 chance of success on medium difficulty INT-based tasks? You are not the only poster to have introduced this notion of playing a character as a genius in some fashion that is divorced from succeeding at INT checks, but I still don't understand the notion. Can you give an example of what this might actually look like in play?

I think the reason for my puzzlement is, broadly, this: I've known some fairly clever people over the years, and the way their cleverness manifested was in the ability to succeed very reliably at the intellectual endeavours they set for themselves. So in the context of the game, I don't know what it would mean to be very clever yet not be very reliable at intellectual tasks.

Two: the example of "Holmes with 5 INT" is not about statting up a character from fiction. It's about statting up a character, playing that character, and then having it emerge in play that the character in question is very clever. There's been a long discussion upthread of how that might happen even if the PCs' INT is not terribly high (eg lucky rolls; good skill bonuses; avoiding the need to roll at all via skilled play; etc).

 

[Maxperson]

Just to be clear: are you saying that a 20 INT character can know that William the Conqueror's reign in England began in 1066; or can know that the Nile is the longest river in the world; even if s/he has never encountered those facts before?

Not all knowledge is intelligence. When talking about a genius figuring things out, we're discussing reason coming into play. Knowledge of the sort you just described has no basis in intelligence. Any idiot can know it if taught, and the smartest person in the world won't if not taught. Your question is a distraction from what genius and idiocy mean.

That seems odd to me (and in discussing the first "knowledge check" mechanic in the game, thieves' Read Languages ability, Gygax said (DMG p 20) that "This ability assumes that the language is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable").

And yet people can and do decipher dead languages and codes that they have never encountered before. Gygax was wrong. Not surprising. Much of what he said is brilliant, and much of it is very wrong.

One: what does it mean to "play a character as a a genius with unparalleled levels of intelligence" if you have only a 50/50 chance of success on medium difficulty INT-based tasks?

You don't have a 50/50 chance of success on medium difficulty int based checks. You have a 50/50 shot at int based checks that you haven't been trained in. A genius is the only one who could be right half the time under those circumstances.

You are not the only poster to have introduced this notion of playing a character as a genius in some fashion that is divorced from succeeding at INT checks, but I still don't understand the notion. Can you give an example of what this might actually look like in play?

Int checks matter. The genius is a genius because he can make checks so reliably without knowing squat about the skill in question. Einstein, Hawking, and others are only as great as they are at physics because they are ALSO highly trained. Their base genius could only take them so far in physics with no training. Probably not even 50/50.

I think the reason for my puzzlement is, broadly, this: I've known some fairly clever people over the years, and the way their cleverness manifested was in the ability to succeed very reliably at the intellectual endeavours they set for themselves. So in the context of the game, I don't know what it would mean to be very clever yet not be very reliable at intellectual tasks.

How many were untrained, had never heard of the intellectual endeavor prior to starting it, and did no research prior to success?