D&D 5E Weird Interpretations for High/Low Ability Scores

[Swarmkeeper]

No, it clearly fits under:

Investigation.

When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

Making deductions based on observed clues is Intelligence (investigation).

Not so "clearly". Might be better to say: Making deductions based on observed clues is often but not always Intelligence (investigation).

What @Bawylie said.

Also this...

Variant: Skills with Different Abilities (PHB p175)
Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check.

So, not out of the question to call for a Wisdom (Investigation) check in such a situation.

 

[iserith]

Ok, let’s get semantic about it, then.

I didn’t say he makes deductions, I said he makes conclusions. The example I gave about the thief and the dog comes from The Adventure of Silver Blaze. In that story, Holmes concludes that Silver Blaze (a horse) was stolen and a trainer was murdered.

Lestrade, the cop, uses deductive reasoning and arrives at a suspect. He tells Holmes his theory of the case. Holmes, however, uses abduction in order to prove that the cops’ suspect is innocent. The actual culprit was the deceased trainer who had stolen and injured the horse to influence the outcome of (and win a bet on) the next big race. The guard dog did nothing while the theft took place.

in the end, Holmes compliments Lestrade’s deductions (even says he’s a good cop), but points out that he lacks imagination and intuition. Logical deductions pointed to the wrong conclusion - Holmes solved it by imagining what might have happened that would also create the same evidence and clues.

The story goes out of its way to make the point that the Intelligence (Investigation) check didn’t work while intuition did. Not in D&D terms, but yeah.

Also, there's nothing that says a player and thus the character can't just arrive at the same conclusion that Holmes did without an ability check at all. Ability scores are relevant only when there's a check associated with them. If I say my Int-5 Holmesian character thinks, as in your example, that the thief is actually the victim based on the clues we've found, there's no check there. I get to decide what my character thinks. (I just might not be right.)

 

[TwoSix]

Also, there's nothing that says a player and thus the character can't just arrive at the same conclusion that Holmes did without an ability check at all. Ability scores are relevant only when there's a check associated with them. If I say my Int-5 Holmesian character thinks, as in your example, that the thief is actually the victim based on the clues we've found, there's no check there. I get to decide what my character thinks. (I just might not be right.)

Plus, if you think of Wisdom as more "holistic" thinking and Intelligence more as "book learning", I even think there's evidence for Sherlock having some fairly large blind spots in terms of his overall learning. I'm thinking of a scene in Moffat/Gattis Sherlock where Sherlock doesn't seem to know the earth goes around the sun.

 

[Bawylie]

Also, there's nothing that says a player and thus the character can't just arrive at the same conclusion that Holmes did without an ability check at all. Ability scores are relevant only when there's a check associated with them. If I say my Int-5 Holmesian character thinks, as in your example, that the thief is actually the victim based on the clues we've found, there's no check there. I get to decide what my character thinks. (I just might not be right.)

Of course, this is also true.

 

[Bawylie]

Plus, if you think of Wisdom as more "holistic" thinking and Intelligence more as "book learning", I even think there's evidence for Sherlock having some fairly large blind spots in terms of his overall learning. I'm thinking of a scene in Moffat/Gattis Sherlock where Sherlock doesn't seem to know the earth goes around the sun.

That’s in the stories too. He believes his brain only holds so many facts and refuses to pay attention to anything outside his areas of interest.

Perhaps that’s another “Int 5” quality.

 

[Ovinomancer]

While not disagreeing that you could do a Sherlock with INT -5, I think it's treading into farcical territory and would require a game more on the non-serious side of things. This might be a large part of the pushback on the concept -- it's not really a serious approach to trying to model a Sherlock Holmes in the game mechanics in that it's certainly not leveraging those mechanics for the effect but instead fighting against them. Ultimately, for the concept to work, your GM has to agree with your interpretation of the difference between when WIS should be called for and when INT should be called for and you really need to work hard to make sure it's never INT that's called for. Sherlock does, indeed, eschew facts in some categories, but in others he's encyclopedic -- and those categories where he excels are ones in which are usually applicable to his chosen profession. It seems odd to avoid "knowing things" while playing a character that, canonically, knows quite a lot of things.

As I said, though, I don't see a problem in trying to do so, but I do see an impediment in how the mechanics work and I also think the approach is too farcical for most. I'd allow a player to try, if the tone of the game works with it (this is session zero stuff, and agreed by the table), but I'd caution them that the actual results in play may be disappointing.

 

[Bawylie]

While not disagreeing that you could do a Sherlock with INT -5, I think it's treading into farcical territory and would require a game more on the non-serious side of things. This might be a large part of the pushback on the concept -- it's not really a serious approach to trying to model a Sherlock Holmes in the game mechanics in that it's certainly not leveraging those mechanics for the effect but instead fighting against them. Ultimately, for the concept to work, your GM has to agree with your interpretation of the difference between when WIS should be called for and when INT should be called for and you really need to work hard to make sure it's never INT that's called for. Sherlock does, indeed, eschew facts in some categories, but in others he's encyclopedic -- and those categories where he excels are ones in which are usually applicable to his chosen profession. It seems odd to avoid "knowing things" while playing a character that, canonically, knows quite a lot of things.

As I said, though, I don't see a problem in trying to do so, but I do see an impediment in how the mechanics work and I also think the approach is too farcical for most. I'd allow a player to try, if the tone of the game works with it (this is session zero stuff, and agreed by the table), but I'd caution them that the actual results in play may be disappointing.

Well, that’s why “it’s just Wisdom” is a bit of a cop-out.

Disguises, connections, perception, and agents are also at play (and perhaps also divinations, if he’s in a d&d world). The whole concept is really more bard-like-spy. And the conclusions come from being the detective that can imagine the big picture - not from being the smartiest pants.

This is also why Moriarty is the foil! HE’S the big INT guy. Plans and schemes and anticipation. Hiding in plain sight. It takes an imaginative brain fighting the logic that excludes the socially connected upstanding professor from the list of suspects in order to catch him. “It can’t be him. He’s a respected blah blah blah.” But it IS Moriarty. There’s no evidence behind it - but it is.

 

[iserith]

It is funny in that it's a reversal of expectations, but ultimately it wouldn't necessarily be ineffective in actual play. On average over time, a character with a higher Intelligence will obviously do better on Intelligence (Investigation) checks, but that's pretty much irrelevant at the table. I only need to succeed on occasional Intelligence (Investigation) checks, which I'm going to avoid like any other ability check if I can, and if I can't, I'm going to have other PCs working together with me (Watson, perhaps?) or I might spend my Inspiration. If the DM is running the investigation scenario in what I would view as ideal, a failed check is not a dead end but progress combined with a setback which means that my character figures out the thing, but there's a cost or complication which only makes things more interesting anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agreeing with all of that, but you're going to be doing a lot of work trying to recast everything Sherlock does in this light. I question if it's worthwhile to do so, given you will have to continually convince your GM just so you can circumvent a more straightforward approach. I dunno, "because you can" has never really resonated with me as a reason to do this much work.

 

[iserith]

Agreeing with all of that, but you're going to be doing a lot of work trying to recast everything Sherlock does in this light. I question if it's worthwhile to do so, given you will have to continually convince your GM just so you can circumvent a more straightforward approach. I dunno, "because you can" has never really resonated with me as a reason to do this much work.

I run a lot of one-shots with strangers and even with my regular johns we mix it up with campaigns and one-shots quite a bit. Meme characters are pretty common and I haven't seen one yet that was so terrible that it couldn't contribute meaningfully or wasn't fun to see in play. We've several times played short-run campaigns that rolled 3d6 in order which produced some awful stats, characters that rightfully should have died before their first day of adventuring. They still did fine.