D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

*makes Intelligence check with -3 modifier to determine what this thread is about*

*fails the check*

Oh, right, it's about semantics and logical fallacies which is super useful and isn't just a tactic to distract from having an untenable position regarding the subject at hand.

Just to be clear, as I seem to be in the habit of misinterpreting you, but 'untenable position regarding the subject of this thread' seems to me that you are saying that these posters are wrong. I assume that the position you're referring to is your commonly made statement about there being an objective way to roleplay. Regardless, you seem to think that people are engaged in intentionally evasive discourse about other things rather than face this incorrectness. That sum it up?

 

[iserith]

I assume that the position you're referring to is your commonly made statement about there being an objective way to roleplay.

Good assumption.

Regardless, you seem to think that people are engaged in intentionally evasive discourse about other things rather than face this incorrectness. That sum it up?

Intentional or not, that is the result in my view.

 

[Sadras]

Would they play other stats at 5?

No. They use the variant point buy model, which as I have previously mentioned ensures all characters begin with a minimum 8 in every ability score as, to my belief, the designers intended.

As I've mentioned several times upthread, one thing that bothers me is the idea that having 5 INT should be some sort of burden that has a profound effect on gameplay in a way that having 5 STR doesn't.

@Manbearcat answers that in his post #907

One (well...me) can't help but wonder if much/most/all of these matters would be resolved if Intelligence expressed more mechanical potency in D&D's turn-based combat engine.

Which is similar in vein to what I have expressed numerous times in my thread in that at our table we have made INT more weighty mechanically i.e. with the addition/reduction in proficiencies - similar to # of languages of 2e, but much more relevant.

And the reason for the suggestion of making INT more mechanically weighty is because INT doesn't measure up to many of the other abilities despite everyone fumbling over their feet in this thread to reflect how important INT is. It really isn't, unless it is for the most part directly linked to your class.

 

[TwoSix]

Not quite. It's still an appeal to authority even if the person has relevant authority if the form of the argument is that they are correct because of their authority. You're correct that it's not automatically fallacious -- a bad argument isn't necessarily a wrong one and informal fallacies only speak to bad arguments (formal ones are the ones automatically wrong) -- but the general way to tell if a fallacy is in place is if the fallacy appears in place of an argument. "I'm a doctor, so you're wrong" is an appeal to authority, even if the argument is correct. In that case, it's still a A2A, it's just not a fallacious one. Now, "I'm a doctor, and because of that I know these things (provided), and those things are in contradiction to your claims," is not an A2A. Yes, the person cited their relevant authority, but they used that authority as bone fides for the the counter arguments they provided. Hence, not A2A.

Your post is long, and has math, so it seems authoritative to me.

 

[Gwarok]

Lol, that is awesome. I think your right about how to play that. Low int high wis would describe someone who makes every possible mistake, but only makes it once.

 

[BoldItalic]

Your post is long, and has math, so it seems authoritative to me.

Your post is succinct and needs no math, so I find it easy to agree with.

 

[Manbearcat]

Your post is succinct and needs no math, so I find it easy to agree with.

You are a perpetual authority machine, so I pledge my fealty to anything you write.

 

[TwoSix]

Your post is succinct and needs no math, so I find it easy to agree with.

You are a perpetual authority machine, so I pledge my fealty to anything you write.

We are truly a triumvirate of authority, and need to quickly migrate to Skopje with our poodles.

 

[Manbearcat]

We are truly a triumvirate of authority, and need to quickly migrate to Skopje with our poodles.

The western world would fall to ruin for lack of direction and obnoxiously poofey canines.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good assumption.



Intentional or not, that is the result in my view.

Okay, so why do you think they're doing that? What do they gain by being dishonest in avoiding the topic, as you see it?

Those questions aside, you do realize that you just said that you think people are intentionally distracting to avoid their being wrong about their opinions on how to play the game, and that, if they are wrong on that, you're establishing an objective measure of what a non-incorrect game would look like? I get disagreeing, even vehemently, but is telling others they're wrong about how they play instead of just disagreeing that that isn't for you and saying good luck the correct approach?