D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Satyrn]

I've always considered a 5 Int to be dumb as a rock, and just as useless for anything but bashing in heads. Luckily, the cleric I'm playing right now has a 6 Int.


But yeah, my DM hasn't stopped me from doing anything I've said, and I don't think he will in the future. I would be irritated if, when I say "I turn the dial to S" he said I wasn't smart enough, or had me roll to see if I was smart enough to know. But again, I don't think he would, because he hasn't with the last couple puzzles he presented (though I myself wasn't clever enough).


That said, I wouldn't have my Cleric turn that dial to S because one of the ways his 6 Int manifests is as a complete disinterest in reading. Mind you, I could easily get around that limitation on this case by turning the dial to that squiggle. The pattern starts with one, it probably ends with one, too.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Mind you, I could easily get around that limitation on this case by turning the dial to that squiggle. The pattern starts with one, it probably ends with one, too.

A fine example of what I mean when I talk about ignoring whether a character did something because the player new some particular fact, and just focus on whether the character could have any reason of their own to do the same thing because they usually can (and, in my opinion, therefor do).

 

[Maxperson]

My point is that the PC's action is irrational in the sense that it is contrary to his/her interests. Hence, if the player is expected to declare such an action the player is being expected to play his/her PC as irrational. Which I think does not make for good gameplay, and is not demanded in any ruleset for D&D except perhaps 2nd ed AD&D.

Elfcrusher is right that, if you are playing in that 2nd ed style, then it may be rational for the player to play his/her PC as irrational. That's why I don't think much of the 2nd ed style!

And on the usage of the word "irrational" - I thought it was fairly clear that I meant objectively irrational in the sense of contrary to the PC's own goals, and hence not something which the PC has a reason to do, although s/he may falsely believe that s/he does have such a reason. Irrational does not have to mean knowingly irrational. The world is full of irrational behaviour, but only some of it is knowingly irrational in the sense described by Maxperson; much of it is the result of people not having a good understanding of the things that they have reason to do, given their interests and goals.

I think you should use another word than irrational. Maybe just say acting against his goals.

ir·ra·tion·al
i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
1.
not logical or reasonable.

It's both logical and reasonable for a stupid person to act against his goals if he believe he is acting for them or is unaware that he is acting against them. Your use of irrational does not fit what you are arguing.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, No. I don't believe you.

I'm going to be blunt here. It's irrelevant what you believe. We're discussing my thoughts and beliefs here, not yours. I literally cannot be wrong on this and you literally cannot be right unless you agree with me.

Arguing against what I think and believe as if I think or believe something different automatically makes you wrong.

I do not believe that you do not see the many ways to act like you have a 50 IQ as not being exact IN COMPARISON (ultra emphasis added because you have repeated ignored this phrase and the context it creates, and have mischaracterized my statements in doing so) to the many ways to act stupid by comparison to however you would act with some higher intelligence score and no related measure of intelligence, such as IQ score, factoring into however it is you are acting.

"In comparison" also doesn't matter. You don't get to compare something to something else in order to change what I think or believe into something that I don't think or believe.

Let me give an example. In comparison to infinity, your "in comparison" is also exact. That sort of argument automatically fails. Either respond to my argument without attempting to distort it, or go discuss this with someone else. I'm no longer going to respond to your mischaracterizations of my position.

 

[Maxperson]

At best, we can say Int 5 represents below average because that is what the rules say. There is no way to honestly say what "the norm" is outside subjective experience. It's on the player to decide whether the character is actually stupid and what that means for the character's personality and decisions. If a player says he or she has a character with Int 5, that only tells me a -3 penalty to Intelligence-related checks applies. How the player actually plays the character (both in portrayal and in roleplaying, that is, the decisions the player makes for the character) and to some extent the character's listed personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws are what inform me whether the character is stupid or not.

Below average = stupid. It's up to the player to figure out how to roleplay that stupid, yes.

 

[Satyrn]

I think you should use another word than irrational. Maybe just say acting against his goals.

ir·ra·tion·al
i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
1.
not logical or reasonable.

It's both logical and reasonable for a stupid person to act against his goals if he believe he is acting for them or is unaware that he is acting against them. Your use of irrational does not fit what you are arguing.

Your quoted definition tells me that it's because this person believes or is unaware he is acting in his own interest when he's not that he is acting irrational. His logic has failed him, or he has not reasoned properly, or has not taken the steps to judge a reasonable course of action, etc.

 

[Valmarius]

If a player says he or she has a character with Int 5, that only tells me a -3 penalty to Intelligence-related checks applies. How the player actually plays the character (both in portrayal and in roleplaying, that is, the decisions the player makes for the character) and to some extent the character's listed personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws are what inform me whether the character is stupid or not.

A prime example of a character who is NOT stupid, but still has a -3 on Intelligence checks, is a person who buckles under pressure. You can play the character as being as smart as you like, but any time they're attempting a task under duress (there's a time limit on the solution, the party needs to remember the enemy's weakness, basically any time making an Intelligence check makes sense) then they're more likely to screw it up.
The -3 to checks (which is what Int 5 gets you) can be played and portrayed in any number of ways.

 

[Zardnaar]

Update. She now has 6 int, DM let her be coached by an NPC for +1 intelligence at a special school. We rolled for comliness and she is rather attractive (17 or 18 IIRC) and some sort of honourable Knight type is looking after her so people do not take advantage of her as she is kind of stupid.

 

[Satyrn]

Update. She now has 6 int, DM let her be coached by an NPC for +1 intelligence at a special school. We rolled for comliness and she is rather attractive (17 or 18 IIRC) and some sort of honourable Knight type is looking after her so people do not take advantage of her as she is kind of stupid.

Are you sure this honourable knight isn't a dastardly rogue? I mean, have you thoroughly investigated him and conducted all the necessary divinations?

 

[Zardnaar]

Are you sure this honourable knight isn't a dastardly rogue? I mean, have you thoroughly investigated him and conducted all the necessary divinations?

Who knows. Not my business and she seems to like him anyway.