D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[BoldItalic]

That doesn't make investigation = intelligence, though. A skill modified by intelligence does not make that skill = intelligence.

At last, we agree on something. They are not mathematically equal. But I didn't assert that they were. I argue that the Investigation skill models one aspect of what is commonly called intelligence. You haven't refuted that. You have just denied something else, something that wasn't contentious anyway.

Do you accept the proposition that the Investigation skill models one aspect of what is commonly called intelligence? Or do you wish to propose an argument that refutes it?

Exceptions to a rule do not disprove the rule.

They do in my book of logic.
∃X:¬P(X) → ¬∀X(X).
But maybe you've read a different book?

 

[Maxperson]

At last, we agree on something. They are not mathematically equal. But I didn't assert that they were. I argue that the Investigation skill models one aspect of what is commonly called intelligence. You haven't refuted that. You have just denied something else, something that wasn't contentious anyway.

In 5e, one and only one thing is intelligence.......and that's intelligence. Intelligence is an ability and ONLY an ability. Skills are skills, and given the common usage of what a skill is (5e is written with common usage in mind), it is learned and modified by abilities.

Do you accept the proposition that the Investigation skill models one aspect of what is commonly called intelligence? Or do you wish to propose an argument that refutes it?

Of course it doesn't model intelligence. It's a skill, which is a learned ability. Intelligence modifies the skill, which is itself separate from intelligence.

But maybe you've read a different book?

There are exceptions to everything, especially in 5e which is an exception based system. The rule still functions in an exception based system.

 

[BoldItalic]

Of course it doesn't model intelligence. It's a skill, which is a learned ability. Intelligence modifies the skill, which is itself separate from intelligence.

1. Where does it say that all skills are learnt?
2. Why does it say, PHB p.174, that "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score"?
3. What role does deductive inference play in intelligence?

 

[Yardiff]

Stat scores are your innate abilities.
Skills are your training.
Deduction is a training.
The aspect is telling you what stat to usually apply when using your training (skills).
Classes give you training or granted powers unless it specifically say different as in the Sorcerer.


At least that how I see it even in 5e.

 

[MechaPilot]

To those of you still engaged in this discussion, regardless of what opinion you hold, I encourage you to abandon the discussion. I haven't seen anything productive come up in this thread in a long time now, and it's fairly obvious that no one is convincing anyone else to change their opinion. Continuing this discussion is just a waste of time that could be spent more constructively.

 

[Maxperson]

Where does it say that all skills are learnt?

Common usage of the term, which is what 5e uses.

Why does it say, PHB p.174, that "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score"?

Because skills rely on attributes to function. They are not themselves the attribute.

What role does deductive inference play in intelligence?

Doesn't matter. Intelligence in 5e is only "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason."

 

[Maxperson]

To those of you still engaged in this discussion, regardless of what opinion you hold, I encourage you to abandon the discussion. I haven't seen anything productive come up in this thread in a long time now, and it's fairly obvious that no one is convincing anyone else to change their opinion. Continuing this discussion is just a waste of time that could be spent more constructively.

If you don't want to engage, don't. It's not your place to encourage or discourage us from keeping up the debate, though.

 

[MechaPilot]

If you don't want to engage, don't. It's not your place to encourage or discourage us from keeping up the debate, though.

And it's your place to tell me what my place is or is not? I don't believe that it is.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Maxperson's argument appears to be that the rules are ludicrous and incorrect unless they support his opinion. Also that the colloquial meaning of a term ("skills") is acceptable when used to support his argument, but not otherwise ("intelligence").

It's clear to me he's not willing to have a discussion in good faith.

 

[Hriston]

I'm obviously a bit late to this party, but I've just caught up on the whole thread and have something to say. It seems to me the issue here is a disagreement about what roleplay actually entails.

Is it, as some here seem to believe, simply following a script you wrote for yourself at char gen? Is the character sheet some sort of binding document that ought to be used to force the player to make the "right" choices for his/her character? Personally, although I do enjoy a bit of acting, I wouldn't want to play in a game like that.

I believe rather that roleplay is an activity in which one assumes not only the abilities of the PC, but also its skills and resources, and makes decisions about what to do with them to the best of the player's, not the character's mind you but the player's abilities. Anything less is simply acting out a part, whether it was you or someone else that wrote that part for you.