Good reasons to give a race an Int penalty?

[Larkas]

I've been struggling a bit in making a new playable race. These guys are supposed to be tribal in a world filled with civilization, and somewhat animalistic in tactics (think of a pack of wolves here). However, I can't bring myself to give them an Int penalty: that seems just harsh. I don't know if I want to commit this race's "tribalness" to a biological reason. If anything, I feel it might have more to do with a lack of capacity for socialization (Cha penalty) than impaired thinking (even though a -2 Int race can still spawn fairly brilliant individuals).

Hence, I turn to the Playground's wisdom. Do you guys see any good reason to give a humanoid race who's not particularly stupid a penalty to Int? (If this helps anything, keep in mind that not even goblins take a hit to Int.)

[malonkey1]

My understanding is that Int pertains to abstract, high-level thinking, such as complex mathematics, as opposed to socialization (Charisma) or instinctive reasoning and common sense (Wisdom). A race with an Intelligence penalty would not necessarily be dumb, but may have trouble conceptualizing complex problems. They would prefer direct approaches, and be more concerned with objects and people than with ideas or theories. Think "Book Dumb but Street Smart".

[maniacalmojo]

Mechanically and thematically it makes sense to me to give them the penelty. Int is learned knowledge where a animalistic tribe would be lacking. I would personally offer a wisdom bonus as well.

[Vogonjeltz]

Wood Elves -2 int, +2 str
And half orcs and orcs come to mind

[Andion Isurand]

I give my half-orcs the usual penalties, but with extra skill points for being half human.

It puts their skill total half way between that of a human and an orc.

[Larkas]

My understanding is that Int pertains to abstract, high-level thinking, such as complex mathematics, as opposed to socialization (Charisma) or instinctive reasoning and common sense (Wisdom). A race with an Intelligence penalty would not necessarily be dumb, but may have trouble conceptualizing complex problems. They would prefer direct approaches, and be more concerned with objects and people than with ideas or theories. Think "Book Dumb but Street Smart".

Hmmmm, that makes a lot of sense. I think I have trouble wrapping my head around that -2 Int <> dumb/stupid. Do you by any chance have an example of characters that would more or less conform to that?


Mechanically and thematically it makes sense to me to give them the penelty. Int is learned knowledge where a animalistic tribe would be lacking. I would personally offer a wisdom bonus as well.

I was actually already giving these guys +2 Wis :smallsmile: I guess that, for a -2 Int, +2 Wis race, the extension of the "obvious" (i.e.: common sense) is increased, but they primarily know what they know, less often trying to expand that common knowledge. They wouldn't offer much resistance to changing their ways if a proven better way is shown them, however. Hmmm...


Wood Elves -2 int, +2 str
And half orcs and orcs come to mind

Make that +2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con, -2 Int. I specifically am trying to stay away from core 3.5's race design, as they, save for a few exceptions (dwarf, human, gnome), are just bad. This is specially true of half-orcs and orcs.


I give my half-orcs the usual penalties, but with extra skill points for being half human.

It puts their skill total half way between that of a human and an orc.

Well, if it works for you... Thanks for the input, but this isn't specifically about half-orcs, though.

[Demonic Spoon]

Ability scores do not entirely need to represent biological features. Ability scores can represent experience and training. If a races' culture is not conductive to an intelligent population, then it might make sense.

That said, intelligence in D&D largely translates to "capacity to learn skills". The barbarian class, for example, is illiterate and thematically built around the idea of a tribal society, but they don't get an int penalty...And in fact, the skills available to them are pretty good (better than fighters, which are typically much more "civilized") - Barbarians are actually rewarded more for having a >8 int score than many other classes. I don't think that just because a race is tribal that it deserves an int penalty. A race deserves an int penalty if the members of the race themselves are simple (either through culture or biology).

[John Longarrow]

Hmmmm, that makes a lot of sense. I think I have trouble wrapping my head around that -2 Int <> dumb/stupid. Do you by any chance have an example of characters that would more or less conform to that?

Have you ever met someone that is pleasant, sociable, and fairly adept within their chosen career but that just doesn't... get it... when people try to explain things to them? Some one who isn't dumb but that doesn't learn easily? Someone who needs to be walked through something many times (to the point it becomes rote) before they can do a job?

Low INT in D&D terms isn't someone who is an idiot. Its someone who isn't very mentally agile. A wood elf is not an idiot. A wood elf is fairly set in what they do and how they do it. They can become incredibly skilled over their long lives, but they don't learn quickly.

[Vogonjeltz]

Ability scores do not entirely need to represent biological features. Ability scores can represent experience and training. If a races' culture is not conductive to an intelligent population, then it might make sense.

That said, intelligence in D&D largely translates to "capacity to learn skills". The barbarian class, for example, is illiterate and thematically built around the idea of a tribal society, but they don't get an int penalty...And in fact, the skills available to them are pretty good (better than fighters, which are typically much more "civilized") - Barbarians are actually rewarded more for having a >8 int score than many other classes. I don't think that just because a race is tribal that it deserves an int penalty. A race deserves an int penalty if the members of the race themselves are simple (either through culture or biology).

Have to disagree, the game defines the ability scores as biological.


Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. ... Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance. ... Constitution represents your character’s health and stamina. ... Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. ... Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. ... Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.

I'd also contest the idea that Barbarians are rewarded more for higher Int. They have exactly 1 Int-based skill and their defining class feature, rage, disallows the use of Int-based skills nor Combat Expertise, one of the only feats that actually requires a higher Int to take. Barbarian has 4+int skill points/level and 9 skills (45% acquisition rate) the rest of the base classes have skill acquisition rates of 15% (wizard), 20% (bard), 20% (cleric), 20% (Paladin), 22% (Monk), 27% (rogue), 28% (Fighter), 30% (druid), 31% (Ranger), and 33% (sorcerer).

If anything, the Barbarian benefits from having a higher Int the least as they can acquire the largest percentage of their key skills automatically.