Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6842929" data-attributes="member: 16814">I think that it would be clearly "wrong" to play a 5 INT as a super genius.  I'm not sure that doing so would be acceptable at the vast majority of tables.  Now, that has the caveats of being played intentionally to represent a super genius, not as a lark or a delusion, and that such play is accepted unconditionally.  I'd not allow such at my table*.  Also, I'd ask for INT checks far more often that I would for a higher INT for more mundane things.  So, in that regard, I suppose Iserth's assertions that there's no rule that says you can't is accurate, if playing it a bit narrowly with reasonable assumptions.  However, noting that there exists a theoretical lack of handicap when general practice would indicate otherwise (pretty sure I'm safe in saying most people would have an issue with a super genius with a 5 INT and no massive drawbacks like no short term memory).  At that point, you're arguing for a distinction that's essentially meaningless except within a very white room.* I haven't had this occur, and considered handling it by requiring INT checks for the super genius ideas, or even just having the opposition be especially good at predicting and foiling the "super genius's" plans, but then realized that those are in-game solutions to what is an out-of-game expectation issue, and that I should just address it out of game.  If no solution out-of-game can be reached, then the removal of the problem is the warranted option.</blockquote>

Verification