Sadras
Legend
I think Iserith's answer, and mine, is that you can't, so don't try. Let the dice fall where they may, and reward Inspiration (and general table approval) for good roleplaying. And that good roleplaying may very well be, "Yeah, my character is clueless and illogical in so many ways, but he has a strange gift for abstract logic puzzles."
Fair enough, but does that mean you expect such a player to also roleplay their character's clueless and illogical flaws or is this a one-way street where the only part of that 5 INT that needs to be roleplayed is the strange gift for abstract puzzles.
Now just touching on last week's topic.
I don't share your concerns about player abuse/dump-statting/mix-maxing, etc., no. But that's probably because I've been pretty lucky, player-wise.
Presumably it can be done, and is done.
But that doesn't tell us what counts as good RPing.
I don't share the concerns of player abuse.
Designers have to look beyond their own tables, perhaps their own non-fears and attempt to plug holes where player abuse might exist within the broader playerbase and cause unnecessary friction at other tables.
If I look at the 5e PHB, I see several instances where they provide guidance on low INT and what INT is utilised for.
Furthermore, in the 5e DMG under the NPC creation rules (page 89) NPCs with low INT have qualities such as dim-witted and slow. Interesting that here we have the designers of the game advising the DM on how to roleplay characters with low INT, but there appears to be resistance on this thread when similar such advise is offered to players on their own roleplaying. One could argue this could just be another case of player entitlement.
But besides all the advice/hints we also have MECHANICS guiding us: On page 13 of the PHB, the standard array example provided as well as the point buy system alone ensures that character's begin with a minimum score of 8 INT. One has to ask why would they insist on a minimum of 8 INT.
I can only think of 2 reasons, there might be more:
1. To limit abuse on the min/max of abilities (despite some DMs honestly not having such concerns at their own tables); and/or
2. To ensure that player's are forced to draw up characters with a reasonable amount of INT to ensure a believable level of participation by the player through the character and thus ensuring no possible table friction (due to being "that guy" as @iserith put it to @Maxperson some posts back)
It does appear to me, that the designers certainly shared the same concerns with me and many other posters on this thread otherwise there would be no need to create these minimum restrictions.
I'm certainly not saying that those that roleplay 5 INT as smart is bad/poor roleplaying but from the 5e core rulebooks PoV, it is certainly not RAI (Roleplaying as Intended).
As I have said before, I have mechanically fixed for my own table the benefits/disadvantages of having a high/low INT score alleviating my concern for 1 and negating DM involvement for 2. I don't want to be advising my players on their roleplaying styles. It was easier when we were younger and just starting out or if there is newbie player.
Last edited: