Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6847999" data-attributes="member: 6688277"><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Now just touching on last week's topic. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>If I look at the 5e PHB, I see several instances where they provide guidance on low INT and what INT is utilised for.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But besides all the advice/hints we also have <u>MECHANICS</u> 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.</p><p> </p><p>I can only think of 2 reasons, there might be more:</p><p></p><p>1. To limit abuse on the min/max of abilities (despite some DMs honestly not having such concerns at their own tables); and/or</p><p>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 @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077" target="_blank">iserith</a></u></strong></em> put it to @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23751" target="_blank">Maxperson</a></u></strong></em> some posts back) </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 6847999, member: 6688277"] 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. 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 [U]MECHANICS[/U] 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 @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077"]iserith[/URL][/U][/B][/I] put it to @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23751"]Maxperson[/URL][/U][/B][/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
Top