Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7070310" data-attributes="member: 6677017">First off, I'm going to take a step back and explain how the relevant 5e design works so you can consider the ramifications of any changes you want to make.1) Languages and tools are considered equivalent in power.2) Skills are considered stronger than languages or tools. (One weird exception is that Thieves' Tools are essentially as good as a skill, though they "cost less" as a tool.)3) Because of this, there are different rules on acquiring skills vs. acquiring languages and tools.4) Skills (and you can include cantrips here if you like) are only acquired through character building resources--such as class levels, feats, or the precisely 2 everyone gets as part of their initial background. Weapon and armor proficiencies also fall into this category.5) Languages and tools are easier to acquire. You can gain them (and only them) through downtime. You can theoretically learn every tool and language in the PHB by taking a few decades of downtime, and still be a 1st level character.It's important to understand that setup, because anytime you change it you risk moving things away from the designed balance. For instance, if I can learn skills during downtime, bard and rogue lose something, because their granting of extra skills doesn't matter as much. If I can learn weapons (or especially armor) during downtime, the disadvantages of many classes drop dramatically.So just make sure you internalize that design framework before making changes, so you can examine the overall effects of your changes and not have unpleasant results, including throwing off balance, irritating players who understand this framework, or encouraging gaming the system by said players.Now, looking at that framework, it is clear that granting extra language or tool proficiencies isn't really designed to hurt anything. you could just say that the characters all get 5 years of extra training before starting the campaign, and they could have 5 extra of those, and it would be working as intended. So if you want to incentivize Intelligence, simply giving a choice of extra languages and tools equal to Intelligence bonus is a good idea that isn't going to break anything.Now, targeting wizards by taking their starting ones isn't really a good idea in my opinion. It would really bother me as a player if I decided to go wizard. I have paid for a certain feature (in this case, by downtime essentially) and I'm not getting it while the fighter is.Second, you want to decide how you view stat levels. For example, in my worlds, I've decided on something like this (informed by some bell curve analysis, as well as play and world believability considerations) :1:       Lowest2-3:    Radiates lowness4-5:    Unmissably low6-7:    Noticeably below average with interaction8-9:    Low side of average range10-11: Middle of average range12-13: High side of average range14-15: Noticeably above average with interaction16-17: Unmissably high18-19: Radiates highness20:     HighestAnything in the 8-13 range isn't really obviously different. Sure, if you know someone well, and you took a bit of time to intentionally compare your friends mental capabilities, you'd probably decide that the person with the 13 is smarter than the person with the 8, but this isn't something that is always there sticking out like a sore thumb. They are all in the more or less average range.6-7 or 14-15 are noticeably below or above average if you actually interact with the person a bit. They don't stand out at a big deal, but you can tell. Someone with a 6-7 in Int is probably straightforward, or someone who just doesn't consider themselves "the thinking type." They got through school okay (not with stellar grades), but likely have no interest in intellectual or academic pursuits. It's perfectly fine to have a grunt fighter-type with this stat. Someone with a 14-15 is considered smart or bright or academically minded, but they don't stand out as brilliant.4-5 or 16-17 are low or high enough that you can tell, even without really interacting with them. It stands out. In the case of Charisma, you'll notice right away in a social environment, even if they are standing 15 feet away not interacting with you. With Intelligence, a snatch of overheard conversation will probably make it clear that you are dealing with someone who really isn't smart, or someone who is really smart. This is the level of Intelligence of an ogre or hill giant. You can communicate and form simple sentences, but complex ideas are beyond you. A human at this level may be a bit more verbose simply because of environment of upbringing, but is still at the same overall level of intellectual capability.2-3 or 18-19 aren't just unmissable, they radiate it so much it draws the attention of everyone in the room, probably distracting them from what they were doing. With an 18 Charisma, everyone in the room turns at the sight of you (not necessarily because of attractiveness--it could be your bearing or just an undefinable aura of greatness) or listens at the sound of your voice. With a Dexterity of 2 you are a complete klutz, and probably announce your presence by knocking something off the table by the door, bumping into people, or tripping over your own feet. An Intelligence of 2 is "Hulk Smash!" level of cognitive capacity, while an Intelligence of 18 (the highest your typical human can get to) is genius level intellect.1 is the lowest stat that exists, and so it's Intelligence covers a pretty broad range, everything from oozes to many animals. A human technically can't even get to 20 without being at least level 4. In the case of non-adventuring NPCs, it would be world class prodigy level of rare--if you even allowed it to apply to an NPC without class levels or equivalent (or magic). The absolute best of the best only fits in here. An Intelligence of 1 likely represents severe mental disability, and the other stats at 1 have similar ramifications.Now, the way that chart manifests is going to differ somewhat based on the particular stat in question, but it gives me a great framework of interpretation that works for both NPCs and PCs, and allows characters to have stats of 6-7 without it being silly.That's just an example of how I do it, and other DMs do it differently. If you are having issues with PC Intelligence, it might be worth coming up with some schema of interpretation of your own to share with the players so you are all on the same page as to what the stats mean in your world.Third, and most controversially, is you need to decide if and how you are going to incentivize role-playing stats.  You might, for instance, figure out what is common knowledge for the characters based on their backgrounds (in the non-jargon meaning) and they are assumed to know that. Everything beyond that requires an Intelligence check, modified by an appropriate skill. You could also use the DMG variant for automatic success for high enough abilities (I tend to only let that work if you also have proficiency in the related skill, but that's my house rule.) You would then tell the players what they know about stuff when they first encounter it. If they hear about a troll or werewolf, at an opportune moment you'd tell them that everyone in the party knows that werewolves are vulnerable to silver and trolls are vulnerable to fire, except for Character A who grew up in a place where trolls weren't well known. Character B also knows that trolls are vulnerable to acid, and a bit about their behavior. Anyone (including Character A) can then make an Intelligence (History, or whatever skill you feel fits) to see if they know any additional information about trolls. That works great for my players, who are in a habit of asking, "What do I know about..." even though most of the players know quite a bit about the things encountered. On the other hand, if you don't really care about keeping out of character knowledge separate from in-character knowledge, you're not going to be able to get a lot of usage out of this method, and will have to accept that Intelligence might not be as big of a deal in your campaigns.Fourth, NPCs should react to stats that are noticeably above or below the norm. Maybe they don't want to hire "a group of morons" to work for them. Or they are regularly drawn to the high Charisma party members and ignore the low Cha ones. Or they are impressed by the poise with which a high Dex party moves.I've never had my players treat Intelligence as a dump stat, and neither has my DM friend. We pick Intelligence scores that fit. Sure, every now and again you might drop it down a couple points from your initial plan, because you want those points somewhere else, but in that case the player adjusts their character concept--they don't just play them the same way they were intending before despite having lower stats. This might simply be a matter of player maturity. I expect most people, if you just explain that you'd like them to role-play their stats, explain how you interpret different numbers for ability scores, will be able to get on the same page with you and not have major issues in play. Honestly, if I had a player who continued to refuse to get with the program, they wouldn't be invited to the next campaign, because it's just unacceptably childish behavior.</blockquote>

Verification