D&D 5E (2014) So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Satyrn]

Well then, can we muster a pitchfork mob to drive the clerics and necromancers into the sea?

 

[Maxperson]

Well then, can we muster a pitchfork mob to drive the clerics and necromancers into the sea?

Alas! It has been tried. The clerics just cast water breathing and the necromancers become liches.

 

[Yardiff]

Your quote from the Feeblemind spell description looks like a set of restrictions on action declaration - which the GM can and should enforce - not a set of instructions on how to roleplay the character.

So what your saying is that you would continue to RP your character as if nothing has happened except that the spell has put a few limitation on your action declaration?

 

[pemerton]

So what your saying is that you would continue to RP your character as if nothing has happened except that the spell has put a few limitation on your action declaration?

I have no idea how I would play this hypothetical character who has no play history, no backstory, no stats, no nothing except hit by a Feeblemnind spell.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So what your saying is that you would continue to RP your character as if nothing has happened except that the spell has put a few limitation on your action declaration?

Pemerton said nothing of the sort. He said that "Your quote from the Feeblemind description..." well, you can re-read it.

Now, I can understand why you see a parallel between that statement and your "translation" of it. But it's simply not a helpful rhetorical device, and is frankly disrespectful, to take an extreme implication of somebody else's statement and preface it with "So what you are saying is that..."

You might try:
"If that's true, then doesn't that mean the character could be roleplayed...etc."
Or:
"Does that mean that would continue to RP your character...etc."
Or even:
"So how might you roleplay it?"

It's just a lot more respectful, and less snarky/confrontational.

 

[Maxperson]

I have no idea how I would play this hypothetical character who has no play history, no backstory, no stats, no nothing except hit by a Feeblemnind spell.

Feeblemind provides you an idea. It very clearly sets limitations and expectations.

 

[Hriston]

And on the topic of INT, language and permissible action declarations, here is the relevant passage from p 10 of Volume 1 Men & Magic:

Intelligence will . . . affect the referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken, and it also allows additional languages to be spoken.​

Page 12 clarifies that this is +1 language per point above 10.

@Hriston, @iserith: if you haven't seen this passage in Men & Magic you might find it interesting: it is the first indication I've found in a rulebook that the GM can use the INT score to regulate action declarations. (Or maybe the reference is to NPC intelligence? What do you think?)

I gave this rather short shrift earlier, but I think it deserves more consideration. First of all, I think DMs were certainly intended by Gygax to use a monster's intelligence rating as a guide to its behavior, as indicated by the intelligence chart in the Monster Manual, so I suppose this could be a roleplaying suggestion for the DM with regard to NPC actions. The DM is, after all, supposed to remain impartial, and an NPC/monster's Intelligence could well be thought of as an indicator of such a character's likely course of action, similar to the mechanics dealing with morale and loyalty, considerations that were never meant to bind the action declarations of a player character.

The placement of this statement, however, in the section introducing PC ability scores, seems to indicate Gygax is talking about the referee making decisions about whether certain actions would be taken by the PC. I wonder if Gygax's intent here was for the DM to decide a character just wouldn't take certain actions due to low intelligence, or that certain actions would fail once taken. The former doesn't seem to be in keeping with the general development of D&D, while the latter is certainly under the DM's purview even into the most recent edition. I think you're correct in pointing out Gygax is placing this type of regulation in the DM's corner, however, rather than putting it on the player to limit a PC's action declarations. Also of note is Gygax's statement that, "Wisdom rating will act much as does that for intelligence." By which I take it that action declarations will be similarly limited/adjudicated (by the DM).

Taking the above mentioned feebleminded character as an example, if the player of the character declares, "I cast a spell," it's unclear from the passage from Men and Magic whether the DM's response should be, "You can't attempt to do that. You're too stupid," or simply, "Your attempt is a failure." The latter is more in line with my preferences. Nowhere does Gygax indicate, however, that the player should refrain from attempting to cast spells once struck with feeblemind, because that would make a character problem ("Why don't my spells work?") into a player problem ("What do I do instead of casting a spell since the rules clearly say I can't do that?"). It's clearly part of the DM's job.

 

[pemerton]

Feeblemind provides you an idea. It very clearly sets limitations and expectations.

Clearly it provides you with an idea.

But I was answering for me, not for you. I know that there are some action declarations that are out of bounds. That's all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, my justification was that a particular IQ score would have the same theoretical probability of existing as a particular Intelligence score, so if the game we're playing is to compare the two things then we should take that into consideration. This has nothing to do with normal distribution per se, and the only reason I brought up normal distribution with reference to IQ was to explain how IQ is defined in terms of probability. The fact that you've responded mostly by challenging the validity of modeling IQ as a normal distribution is why I asked if you had actually read what I wrote. The way IQ itself is defined tells me that a given IQ score theoretically has a given probability. Questioning that assumption doesn't undermine my argument because doing so takes my argument completely out of context. I hope this is all much clearer now.

Yes, it's much clearer that you still don't understand the point of my argument and are continuing to misuse statistics because it provides a result that you like. You're not alone, this is typically why statistics are misused.

 

[BoldItalic]

Apparently, this thread is exceptionally funny.

Make an Intelligence(Perception) roll. The DC is 25. If you succeed, you see the joke and roll on the floor laughing. You are incapacitated and unable to post on ENWorld for 1 hour.

If you fail by more than 5, you feel compelled to post immediately, challenging the usage of words. Roll 1d6 twice to determine which word(s) you challenge.

1. "Apparently"
2. "this"
3. "thread"
4. "is"
5. "exceptionally"
6. "funny"