Lack of Intelligence [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Slipperychicken

2015-02-12, 05:59 PM

If knowledge skills gave useful and timely information about immediate concerns, as well as reliable inferences and recommendations during planning stages, that would go a long way toward rewarding intelligence investment. After all, that's what information does in the real world, and that's why knowledge is so highly valued IRL.

The real problem is that doing this requires the DM to do considerable prepwork, determine what information is most pertinent, and feel comfortable giving the players a lot of valuable information on a regular basis without prompting. Few DMs seem up to the task, which vastly devalues knowledge skills.

For an easy knowledge skill buff, I would consider allowing knowledge checks to reveal portions of a monster's statblock. If a player rolled high enough on the relevant knowledge, he could choose a few parts of the statblock to be revealed (i.e. If he got a 15, then he could get 2 pieces of information. He can choose 2 from the following list: the monster's maximum hit points, its normal territory and behavior, alignment, movement speeds, tactics, armor class, special abilities and feats, physical ability scores, mental ability scores, or attacks). A PC can choose to roll this knowledge check for any monster at any time, even during planning stages. The DC would probably give one piece of information for DC 10, plus one piece of info for every 5 points by which it exceeds 10 (two at 15, three at 20, four at 25, etc, etc.

Logical DM

2015-02-13, 01:55 AM

The main problem, as has been pointed out, is it can be dumped safely and the only skills that rely on it can all be given to one character - all of them are skills only one person in your party needs to have for everyone to get the benefit. The more people who have stealth, the better your chances of sneaking past the tyrannosaurus, but only the wizard needs arcana to pass the information to the rest of the party.

Just noticed this thread, below is what I posted in 'T.e Featless Game' thread

It's not int saves really do anything. Which is something of a problem - let the wizard pick up the int skills and no other class except for EK/AT needs int at all. My first game of 5e I rolled a 3, put it in int, it literally never came up. I had the same intelligence as a dog and it had absolutely no mechanical impact whatsoever - if you had 3 strength people would notice because you could barely move, if you had 3 wisdom people would know without having to see your character sheet because you'd be really easily tricked and would never notice anything, I had 3 int and never really mentioned it to anyone and nobody at all noticed because intelligence does nothing in 5e.

*someone complains I wasn't trying hard enough to make it into a downside*

No, it shouldn't. That's kind of my point - if I have a weakness, I shouldn't have to 'try hard' to make that weakness hurt me. If the other stats are bad I don't have to try to deliberately screw myself over with my weaknesses, they do it for me. If I have a character with 3 constitution then he'll get sick all the time and go down to a single swing, if I have a character with 3 wisdom he's going get mind controlled more than Belkar does and not notice an elephant sneaking up on him. If I have a character with 3 intelligence then he'll... be bad at a few skills I was never going to take in the first place, because no-one wants intelligence so you just have the wizard take them? And be weak to like the one intelligence save in the game?

Intelligence is an absolute dump stat in 5e, at least charisma has a bunch of saves and you will need to interact with people, but putting 3 in intelligence had absolutely no downside.

Giant2005

2015-02-13, 02:17 AM

rollingForInit

2015-02-13, 02:23 AM

Giant2005

2015-02-13, 02:26 AM

The fact that a DM has to try hard to make Int useful and valuable to discourage it as a dump stat simply proves that it's way too weak. You don't have to try anything to discourage players from dumping Wis, Con, or Dex, for instance.

For most classes, Int is always the go-to dump stat. There's no choice about which stat gives the least, mechanically.

Unless you have a cha-based class mechanic, Charisma doesn't bring a lot to the table either. The fact that there are so many charisma based classes makes charisma a better dump stat imo because it is more likely that other people will be good at the skills you will suck at.

Logical DM

2015-02-13, 02:30 AM

You could always house-rule intelligence into being more useful (But that might make the Wizard a lot more powerful).
You could increase or decrease the number of skill proficiencies by 1 for every Int mod the character has or you could increase/decrease the time it takes to learn a new language/tool proficiency by a factor of their intmod x2.

Personally, I'd like to have seen a lot more warblade style class features in which various off stats had minor effects. Making it a baseline for all classes in ways like skill total being based on intelligence would be ok too, I just think the lots of little bonuses thing would have been neat.

Move earth spell moves more based on your strength, fighters get their int mod to their attack of opportunity damage, wisdom increases range of paladin auras, barbarians have some kind of charisma based taunt, etc etc. Add little bonuses everywhere for classes that reinforce what they're good at, encourage them to care about non vital statistics and don't break anything.

Kryx

2015-02-13, 03:54 AM

Has anyone experimented with adding more languages based on int mod?

I play in Pathfinder's Golarion and considered it, but didn't follow through.

Slipperychicken

2015-02-13, 04:04 AM

Has anyone experimented with adding more languages based on int mod?

That's what 3.X did. I don't think it actually drew people to increase their intelligence. It was just sort of a minor side-benefit to any character who had high intelligence anyway.

rollingForInit

2015-02-13, 04:23 AM

Unless you have a cha-based class mechanic, Charisma doesn't bring a lot to the table either. The fact that there are so many charisma based classes makes charisma a better dump stat imo because it is more likely that other people will be good at the skills you will suck at.

And Intelligence would be better if there were more classes that benefited from it a lot. If there were 2-3 other classes that had Intelligence as a main combat score, it would make for more varied Int-based characters. Preferably I'd want more non-spellcasters for whom it's important. Same goes with Cha as well (like how Cha was a secondary rogue score in 4e). But at least with Cha you can make much more varied characters, because the Bard and the Warlock are very different classes, for instance.

Give us a class without spellcasting that's based on Int, and I'd be much more fine with it. As it is now, if you want a character with very high Int, there aren't a lot of options unless you invest in it just because you feel like it (but which is mechanically a bad idea).

Cyan Wisp

2015-02-13, 09:40 PM

I'm not sure how having new INT-based classes will stem the dazed and confused tide of Forrest Gump adventurers. Unless stat-dumper people play those classes, they'll still dump INT.

In your experience, do dump-stat INT characters behave the way that their INT indicates? I don't mean just acting "slow and grunty" when there's potential for humour; I mean really scale down the mental gears at all times.

If not, maybe call for INT checks for INT-based activities more often - riddle solving, mathematics, tactics, memory, reporting information, explaining something to someone succinctly, playing dragonchess, racing an orc to put together a jigsaw puzzle (Survivor-style). "Please fill out this form" becomes a CR 12 encounter.

Perhaps there are social aspects of having impaired faculties that come into play: Impatient NPCs getting unclear/ambiguous messages or reports. Patronising NPCs refusing to deal with "lackwits" or not trusting them to sensitive tasks. Cleverer groups getting the prime, higher paid jobs, while the PCs get the more low-paid brutish work. It happens. Maybe MENSA-sympathetic Eugenics agents sweep the streets looking for those letting the team down mentally.

The skill rules are flexible enough to have things like clever puzzle traps, requiring Int (Thieves' Tools) to solve and thereby disarm. Situations could be imagined where Int (Insight), Int (Persuasion) or Int (Performance) could be appropriate, as well as others.

If new rules are desired, perhaps a chart of "incompetencies" that occur with low-intelligence, such as illiteracy, sketchy command of known languages, impairment of skills (doesn't matter how dextrous you are if you can't comprehend the trap before you, sort of thing), loss of proficiencies, etc. You could also rework some spells as Intelligence saves: Confusion and other such enchantment spells seem likely contenders. The fluff is that you can rationalise yourself out of the illogical situation. Illusion already involves INT to a certain extent.

TL;DR: PCs should feel the consequences of dumping any stat in the course of a normal game.

xyianth

2015-02-13, 10:10 PM

My players never dump Int anymore. All it took was a single encounter against a group of goblins and their goblin wizard leader. The leader made impressive use of the phantasmal force spell that lead to "one of the scariest g*d d**n fights I've ever lived through" as one of my veteran players put it. Int saves may be few and far between in 5e, but the few that are there are exceptionally nasty when you fail them. My best advice if you see players dumping Int over and over is to try and make knowledge checks have individual ramifications in addition to group ones, make use of the investigation skill (don't let it play second fiddle to perception), and toss out the occasional illusion spell to mess with them.

Giant2005

2015-02-14, 05:41 AM

{Scrubbed}

The rules aren't all-encompasing and they aren't intended to be. There are no rules for low int because the game developers possibly incorrectly assumed a bit of common sense in their playerbase. Someone that has the lowest possible intelligence required for survival shouldn't go around presenting himself as a rocket scientist. He shouldn't have the mental faculties to even have a hope of selling that facade. What you are describing is akin to a character that is a quadriplegic but still a world-renowned juggler and acrobat that likes to run marathons in his free time. Just because there aren't rules for being a quadriplegic, doesn't mean there shouldn't be downsides for being a quadriplegic and to be honest, that concept is so straight forward that it shouldn't really need stated.

{Scrubbed}

rollingForInit

2015-02-14, 06:14 AM

TL;DR: PCs should feel the consequences of dumping any stat in the course of a normal game.

Having 8 in intelligence doesn't make you mentally disabled. 10 is an average human being, 8 is just slightly below average. I play a rogue with 8 Int, and I play that off as her not having had any formal education and being bad at memorising theoretical facts. She's got gaps in her general knowledge. It is generally felt when she fails Investigation rolls. Any dumped stat will have consequences for the appropriate skills or saves.

It's just that dumping, say, Dexterity would be felt a whole lot more since it affects your AC, ranged attacks if you have to make them, and initiative. Wisdom would be felt more since Perception checks are so incredibly common, and Wisdom saving throws are quite common as well. Dumping Con would be felt severely as you take a serious hit to HP and short rest healing. Dumping Str is constantly felt from the lack of carrying capacity, whenever you have jump, and strength checks are pretty common (in general, ofc depends on the type of adventure).

It's really Charisma and Intelligence that are the easiest to dump, imo, because they generally have the least constant consequences. What you lose is those specific skill challenges, but that applies to any ability score. Charisma's problem is somewhat mitigated by being relevant to many classes.

However ... it would be nice if all ability scores had some secdonary function. Intelligence was better when it gave you free languages at character creation. That was a great incentive for taking at least 12 in Int (at least to me). Not sure what Charisma could get, but would be neat with something.

Giant2005

2015-02-14, 06:47 AM

Having 8 in intelligence doesn't make you mentally disabled. 10 is an average human being, 8 is just slightly below average. I play a rogue with 8 Int, and I play that off as her not having had any formal education and being bad at memorising theoretical facts. She's got gaps in her general knowledge. It is generally felt when she fails Investigation rolls. Any dumped stat will have consequences for the appropriate skills or saves.

It's just that dumping, say, Dexterity would be felt a whole lot more since it affects your AC, ranged attacks if you have to make them, and initiative. Wisdom would be felt more since Perception checks are so incredibly common, and Wisdom saving throws are quite common as well. Dumping Con would be felt severely as you take a serious hit to HP and short rest healing. Dumping Str is constantly felt from the lack of carrying capacity, whenever you have jump, and strength checks are pretty common (in general, ofc depends on the type of adventure).

It's really Charisma and Intelligence that are the easiest to dump, imo, because they generally have the least constant consequences. What you lose is those specific skill challenges, but that applies to any ability score. Charisma's problem is somewhat mitigated by being relevant to many classes.

However ... it would be nice if all ability scores had some secdonary function. Intelligence was better when it gave you free languages at character creation. That was a great incentive for taking at least 12 in Int (at least to me). Not sure what Charisma could get, but would be neat with something.
Keep in mind 8 isn't really slightly below average, 8 is 80% of average which is borderline handicapped. Forrest Gump would have an Int score of about 7 by DnD terms - an 8 would be much closer to his level of intellect than that of the average person. Also it could be said that even a 10 isn't average by human standards as the +1 to all attributes standard humans are privy to would raise that number to 11.
I do agree wholeheartedly with you stance on Charisma though. Charisma is my preferred dump stat if only for the reason that I find roleplaying an extremely unlikable character not only easier than a low intelligence one but a whole lot more fun too. It is easier to gauge roleplaying success with too - in his debut my Charisma dumping Halfing Ranger didn't do anything antagonistic, obscene, counterproductive, or not in accordance with the group's sense of morality; yet one of them indicated he was very reluctant to travel with that extremely unlikable character. I really enjoyed myself that day.

Chronos

2015-02-14, 09:23 AM

Quoth Giant2005:

The rules aren't all-encompasing and they aren't intended to be. There are no rules for low int because the game developers possibly incorrectly assumed a bit of common sense in their playerbase. Someone that has the lowest possible intelligence required for survival shouldn't go around presenting himself as a rocket scientist. He shouldn't have the mental faculties to even have a hope of selling that facade.
What this ends up meaning is that someone with a low Int who roleplays it well will end up weaker than someone with a low Int who roleplays it poorly. In other words, the system ends up rewarding poor roleplay. Now, this was certainly not the intent of the designers (they did a pretty good job, overall, of designing the system to reward good roleplay), but it ends up being the case anyway. If, despite the designers' intent, the system ends up rewarding poor roleplay, that's a problem.

Keep in mind 8 isn't really slightly below average, 8 is 80% of average which is borderline handicapped. Forrest Gump would have an Int score of about 7 by DnD terms - an 8 would be much closer to his level of intellect than that of the average person.
You're assuming that IQ is proportional to Int score. It's not. If we assume that scores for the general population follow the distribution of 3d6, then an 8 is only about one standard deviation below normal. That's far enough from the mean that it's noticeable, but not even remotely close to retarded. That's the guy in your class who gets Cs peppered with a few Bs and Ds in his work, and who's always asking the teacher questions that he should already know, but it's not the guy who needs a teacher's aide assigned just to him to enable him to do any work at all.

Giant2005

2015-02-14, 09:33 AM

What this ends up meaning is that someone with a low Int who roleplays it well will end up weaker than someone with a low Int who roleplays it poorly. In other words, the system ends up rewarding poor roleplay. Now, this was certainly not the intent of the designers (they did a pretty good job, overall, of designing the system to reward good roleplay), but it ends up being the case anyway. If, despite the designers' intent, the system ends up rewarding poor roleplay, that's a problem.
If someone is roleplaying their low int that poorly, the DM should step in and help him out. Some an intelligence check to see if the character is smart enough to come up with the strategy that the player is proposing would do. If he fails, the player needs to come up with another idea.

You're assuming that IQ is proportional to Int score. It's not. If we assume that scores for the general population follow the distribution of 3d6, then an 8 is only about one standard deviation below normal. That's far enough from the mean that it's noticeable, but not even remotely close to retarded. That's the guy in your class who gets Cs peppered with a few Bs and Ds in his work, and who's always asking the teacher questions that he should already know, but it's not the guy who needs a teacher's aide assigned just to him to enable him to do any work at all.
A post in this thread that has since been deleted already convinced me that an Int of 8 isn't an IQ 20% lower than someone with an Int of 10. The fact that an Ape has an Int of 6 proves that the progression is far from linear. However the average Int of a human is 11.5 (Average of 3D6+1). An Int of 8 is a lot closer to the Int of an Ape than it is the average human being. With that in mind, it seems likely that someone with an Int of 8 would be far less intelligent than the guy in class that averages a C.

Naanomi

2015-02-14, 09:38 AM

Murderhoboism is a career that attracts the slow of wit; smarter people being able to find safer careers. Adventuring wizards nobly try to herd them towards useful endeavors to avoid becoming raiders and bandits.

Calling for more knowledge and investigation checks in situations where knowledge can't be easily shared (demon appears mid combat, too loud to shout weaknesses across battlefield without moving adjacent) may help. Give more clues to a puzzle to higher Investigation scores people.

I will say I find it easier to punish dumping charisma than Int. It only takes one drunken barbarian at the king's ball to ruin your reputation, no matter how charming his bardic buddy is.

rollingForInit

2015-02-14, 10:05 AM

If someone is roleplaying their low int that poorly, the DM should step in and help him out. Some an intelligence check to see if the character is smart enough to come up with the strategy that the player is proposing would do. If he fails, the player needs to come up with another idea.

A post in this thread that has since been deleted already convinced me that an Int of 8 isn't an IQ 20% lower than someone with an Int of 10. The fact that an Ape has an Int of 6 proves that the progression is far from linear. However the average Int of a human is 11.5 (Average of 3D6+1). An Int of 8 is a lot closer to the Int of an Ape than it is the average human being. With that in mind, it seems likely that someone with an Int of 8 would be far less intelligent than the guy in class that averages a C.

However, that depends on what we actually count Intelligence as, because it certainly isn't just pure IQ, but it's still very loosely defined. The PHB states that it's the "mental actuity" which deals with logic, memory and deductive reasoning. This is especially true considering that the mental capacity of a person is divided into Wisdom, Intelligence and partially Charisma (with how it relates to interacting with other people). Coming up with a great battle plan could be Intelligence, but it might just be the incredible insight that comes with an above average Wisdom.

So if you have a low Int/High Wis character, you could probably have someone that has trouble memorising things by rote (representing the negative modifier on knowledge checks) and isn't very good at noticing patterns and solving riddles (negative Investigation), but might function perfectly otherwise. Battle strategies? Insight, intuition and perception from high Wisdom. Add some high Cha and the character would be a social marvel, and unless the character ends up having to discuss the finer points of history or mathematics, chances are no one's gonna notice the character's lower than average Int.

Paintomancer

2015-02-14, 10:30 AM

That's what 3.X did. I don't think it actually drew people to increase their intelligence. It was just sort of a minor side-benefit to any character who had high intelligence anyway.

Depending on how much much attention you pay to different languages in your games, another language spoken per Intelligence bonus at character creation can be very useful, especially in RP heavy adventures, e.g. two characters both speaking a uncommon language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker#Navajo_code_talkers) like Auran can communicate sensitive information more easily at an elven court, for example.

Gnaeus

2015-02-14, 10:59 AM

A post in this thread that has since been deleted already convinced me that an Int of 8 isn't an IQ 20% lower than someone with an Int of 10. The fact that an Ape has an Int of 6 proves that the progression is far from linear. However the average Int of a human is 11.5 (Average of 3D6+1). An Int of 8 is a lot closer to the Int of an Ape than it is the average human being. With that in mind, it seems likely that someone with an Int of 8 would be far less intelligent than the guy in class that averages a C.

Well, lets put it this way. Thog, the 8 int, half orc barbarian hermit living in a cave, by the time he is 13th level, can in detail describe the types of clouds, the life cycles of animals, identify plants, the leadership of the temple of Oghma, the meanings of their symbols and rites, which god did what to which other god 1000 years ago, and the practices of secret local cults as well as an 18 int wizard who didn't pick religion or nature as proficiencies. He's not THAT dumb.

And if you ask him a question about Arcana, he is 5% less likely to know the answer than average guy in the street.

Once a Fool

2015-02-14, 11:20 AM

rollingForInit

2015-02-14, 12:24 PM

{scrubbed}

I wouldn't. Nor would I allow a player to do so. It wouldn't be a character, it'd be an animal. I agree with what others have said; the ability score scale isn't linear, and I don't think there's any good way to try and calculate how smart a character would be. Personally, I wouldn't allow a character with a score below 8, unless there was a very good reason for it, simply because the drop is so sharp that at some point it'll cross over into something that just doesn't have to ability to reason. I would draw it somewhere below 8, but I've no idea where exactly, so I'd rather just err on the side of caution.

That said, I certainly think you can play Int 8 in several ways. My previous posts about a character just having difficulties memorising was just an example. I'd be very open to allowing players to interprate Int 8 in other ways, and I still believe that it's essential to consider Wis and to some extent Cha, since all three make of the character's mental capacity.

For reference, the Feeblemind spell reduces a target's Int and Cha to 1, with the following consequences: "The creature can't cast spells, acitvate magic items, understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way. The creature can, however, identify its friends, follow them, and even protect them."

3 Int would be better than that, I guess, but aside from really exceptional adventures, I don't think a character with Int 3 would work.

Narren

2015-02-14, 01:02 PM

Chronos

2015-02-14, 02:19 PM

The skill points were a major advantage, but the languages aren't as big a deal.

Still, it is frustrating that 5e doesn't really have any way for learning a lot of languages: For one thing, it makes it impossible for me to translate my 3e bard who spoke about ten different languages (she liked to be able to talk with anyone she met, and if she met speakers of a language she didn't speak, she'd take that on her next level). You usually get two from your race, up to two more from a background (at the cost of tool proficiencies), and then what? You can spend a whole feat (and there's no way it's worth a feat) to get three more, or you can be a ranger for their Favored Conversation Partner feature.

rollingForInit

2015-02-14, 02:25 PM

Naanomi

2015-02-14, 02:36 PM

Gritmonger

2015-02-14, 02:47 PM

I guess part of what I'm struggling with here is that it appears there is a desire to make sure it has a mechanical penalty, or a very concrete benefit that has a more universal effect. It can, if you make intelligence checks for the party before introducing an illusion, for instance - but then you just still need one heavyweight to see through it.

I'm seeing it more in my party's roleplaying - one player has a nine intelligence, a -1 in the game, - and he more often than not, though having deduced something from how an enemy is behaving, will hold off mentioning it, or ask me if I think his character would have realized it yet. For instance, most players, as soon as they hit an ochre jelly with a longsword and saw it split, or heard the description of what an arrow does to it instead, would draw the conclusion that longswords only make things worse (immunity to slashing damage plus splitting). The player realized this, but his consideration was that his character wasn't that smart, and figured the smaller sizes meant he was damaging it, and subsequently split it twice more. Most things you split aren't doing so good afterward.

However, the next time he encountered it, he remembered - and behaved accordingly. It wasn't as though his character couldn't learn, just that he was a little slower on the uptake. And nobody else was volunteering the information at the time.

Another player is a cleric with a nine charisma. It is not that much of a disadvantage either, but he plays it up in being insensitive and somewhat unaware of the feelings of others, or whether or not he should phrase things differently. He is very much a scholarly priest, more concerned with spiritual esoterica than fighting or tending to the flock.

So it really can depend on how committed to roleplaying your players are, frankly, more than bonuses or penalties. Things are trade-offs, if players treat them like that. I try and be aware of that as a GM, and inform players that whatever they treat as a dump stat may still have real-fantasy-world roleplaying consequences.

Maybe that's part of the reason I'm liking 5th - it seems to be not as reliant on pure numbers.

thugthrasher

2015-02-14, 02:47 PM

Intelligence is an absolute dump stat in 5e, at least charisma has a bunch of saves and you will need to interact with people, but putting 3 in intelligence had absolutely no downside.

You may say it has absolutely no MECHANICAL downside (well, really, not MUCH of a mechanical downside, there are a few, but not many, times it matters mechanically if more than one person in a party has intelligence). But, like charisma, many of the downsides to lower intelligence should be enforced through RP. They have all kinds of consequences. If you are only as intelligent as a dog or an elephant, then it should matter. Anyone who interacts with you for more than a couple of minutes should notice. That has consequences in most situations. You also aren't going to take the best strategic action at all times. That has consequences. There's more, but you get the picture. Not being intelligent may not make rolls more difficult, but it makes situations more difficult (which in turn can make your other rolls more difficult, as you could get forced into bad situations).

I actually find it more frustrating (and sometimes more difficult to stay in character) to play a character with very low intelligence than very low any other stat. It may not be as mechanically challenging, but it gets rough.

Of course, if you play in a group with minimal RP, then intelligence may indeed be the least important stat to you. That is probably something they should address in optional rules in the future (they kind of did that a little with allowing skill checks to use different ability scores, but I have not found that to come into play that often, at least in my play).

Tengu_temp

2015-02-14, 03:04 PM

5e is missing what 4e introduced later on and 3e had from the start: combat feats with intelligence-based effects or requirements that are available to everyone. I would like to see a "cunning fighter" feat that gives you access to an array of maneuvers and useful tricks, for example.

rollingForInit

2015-02-14, 03:14 PM

You may say it has absolutely no MECHANICAL downside (well, really, not MUCH of a mechanical downside, there are a few, but not many, times it matters mechanically if more than one person in a party has intelligence). But, like charisma, many of the downsides to lower intelligence should be enforced through RP. They have all kinds of consequences. If you are only as intelligent as a dog or an elephant, then it should matter. Anyone who interacts with you for more than a couple of minutes should notice. That has consequences in most situations. You also aren't going to take the best strategic action at all times. That has consequences. There's more, but you get the picture. Not being intelligent may not make rolls more difficult, but it makes situations more difficult (which in turn can make your other rolls more difficult, as you could get forced into bad situations)..

A dog has 3 Int. Player characters most likely will not ever have lower than 8. At least if you go by the recommended points buy. And even if you do roll 4d6 drop lowest, the odds are you won't have anything lower either. Most characters will have an 8 in something, though.

But the thing with what you're saying is that the same reasoning should be applied to all ability scores. 8 Int should be reflected in RP in some way (having a hard time memorising things, for instance). 8 Charisma should be reflected in how the character acts in social situations. 8 Wisdom could be a character that's completely aloof all the time or doesn't really "get" why people act they way they do. 8 Dexterity could be role-played as someone who stumbles, accidentally knocks glasses off tables, etc. 8 Con could be role-played as someone who gets very winded from running, gets sick more often than the others or bruises easily.

Intelligence doesn't, and shouldn't, have any more or less dramatic RP impacts than other ability scores.

The issue is that dumping Int generally doesn't cost a whole lot. A Wizard dumping strength, at the very least, costs carrying capacity and affects things such as jumping.

5e is missing what 4e introduced later on and 3e had from the start: combat feats with intelligence-based effects or requirements that are available to everyone. I would like to see a "cunning fighter" feat that gives you access to an array of maneuvers and useful tricks, for example.

Yes! That is one of the things I miss.

I also wouldn't mind variant traits on some classes or subclasses. For instance, both the Bard and the Warlock could easily do spellcasting with Int instead of Cha, based on class fluff.

Solusek

2015-02-14, 03:18 PM

Personally, I'd like to have seen a lot more warblade style class features in which various off stats had minor effects. Making it a baseline for all classes in ways like skill total being based on intelligence would be ok too, I just think the lots of little bonuses thing would have been neat.

Move earth spell moves more based on your strength, fighters get their int mod to their attack of opportunity damage, wisdom increases range of paladin auras, barbarians have some kind of charisma based taunt, etc etc. Add little bonuses everywhere for classes that reinforce what they're good at, encourage them to care about non vital statistics and don't break anything.

That is a really great idea. I also wish there was more of that.

I dislike the RPG game systems where you are encouraged to just put ALL your stats in one place and dump everything else (like WoW or Diablo 3 do). I like it when every character has a little bit to gain from every stat. Sure strength may be by far the most important stat for a Barbarian, but why not have a few little perks for that player who decides they want to have the high Cha, or the high Int barb. Give all 6 stats some tangible benefit and let the player decide which ones are most worth it, or best fit the character.

Raimun

2015-02-14, 07:39 PM

Yeah, it's pretty clear that 5th edition doesn't have much to do with intelligence.

*Badum tssshh!*

Thank you! I will be here all week. Not really.

Gritmonger

2015-02-15, 12:59 AM

How about this: instead of getting proficient in a new skill, or a new set of tools, or a new language (which you currently have to do with multiclassing or feats or downtime), you can gain expertise in a number of skills that you are already proficient in equal to your INT bonus? For wizards it means they put their brains towards mundane tasks with acumen as well as many others, and really makes them experts in INT related skills that they might already be proficient in, while allowing other classes that might have an extra plus related to INT to pick up an expertise and perhaps flesh out an intelligent character more than an unintelligent character.

I might even go so far as to say you could impose penalties on the total number of skills a player could have based on INT for extremely low values of INT, or set minimum INT requirements like there are for speaking a language to other skills.

Cap'n Kobold

2015-02-15, 06:49 AM

Gritmonger

2015-02-15, 11:36 AM

I'd say no to gaining multiple Expertise in a single downtime: Getting expertise in a skill can be more powerful than getting proficiency in some cases.

The idea that intelligent characters get to flesh out more than unintelligent ones is also the wrong attitude I think: the issue is the lack of mechanical benefits for Int, not roleplaying ones.

I wouldn't suggest expertise as a result of downtime. You start with proficiencies, and in a point-buy system, the fleshing out that occurs is more a result of the choices you make at character creation.

Currently, there is nothing gained by the Barbarian taking a 12 int aside from INT checks and INT based skill checks themselves - but if it meant he could, at first level, take a proficiency to an expertise with his +1 to Int, it might be well worth it to show that he's not just decent at noticing things, but exceptional.

There are a number of options, but currently INT only appears to affect INT-based rolls, which would be INT checks and knowledge or investigation skills. If the goal is to have INT have more of an effect, to make it a worthy point-buy, it would make it a consideration that you could have an expertise slot if you spend your attribute advancement on another point of INT.

Advantage on some checks, other mechanics - I'd like to hear other options rather than more feats, frankly, because most of the other attributes and abilities have direct effects without invoking the specter of more feats with entry requirements like 3rd edition, and it didn't seem like 5th had a lot of feat-chaining anymore.

Shining Wrath

2015-02-15, 11:51 AM

hawklost

2015-02-15, 12:25 PM

My suggested way of getting more people to not dump int is just this. Add up the parties total int bonus and use that as a modifier on the Loot tables (possible x2 Int mods). Since most players believe that the higher the d% roll, the better the loot, they would want to all have more int. (if the whole party adds up to negative, it would adversely effect there loot and they hate that)

Chronos

2015-02-15, 07:03 PM

What's the logic behind that? You're smarter, so your enemies turned out to have been carrying more stuff?

rollingForInit

2015-02-16, 01:29 AM

Or maybe this is just a pre-tech world where learning and reading really are unimportant for most people who aren't wizards. We D&D players tend to be smart people working in fields that require smarts, so it bothers us that what we're good at, 5e doesn't value.

But it is valued, or rather should be. What about a cunning rogue that plans intricate heists, and in a fight knows precisely where to strike to make it hurt the most, from his vast knowledge of human anatomy? What about a warlord who makes tactical decisions and plans out battlefields? An Inquisitor who methodically follows clues to get to the truth? An engineer who can create usefull constructs and items for combat?

There are tons of ways Intelligence should be useful. In practise, however, it simply isn't enought for anything aside from book knowledge or using Investigation.

Raimun

2015-02-16, 05:12 AM

But it is valued, or rather should be. What about a cunning rogue that plans intricate heists, and in a fight knows precisely where to strike to make it hurt the most, from his vast knowledge of human anatomy? What about a warlord who makes tactical decisions and plans out battlefields? An Inquisitor who methodically follows clues to get to the truth? An engineer who can create usefull constructs and items for combat?

Nuh-uh. That's not have you do things in 5th edition. You take a sword or a bow or choose a "pew-pew"-cantrip and then hit as often and do as much damage as anyone else in your group.

Giant2005

2015-02-16, 06:22 AM

Nuh-uh. That's not have you do things in 5th edition. You take a sword or a bow or choose a "pew-pew"-cantrip and then hit as often and do as much damage as anyone else in your group.

This thread seems to imply that this isn't the case. Rather characters can have an 8 or less for their Int score and still be tactical geniuses.

hawklost

2015-02-16, 10:36 AM

This thread seems to imply that this isn't the case. Rather characters can have an 8 or less for their Int score and still be tactical geniuses.

Well of course they can. Its dnd after all and if a DM doesn't enforce restrictions then players can do many things.

Not enforcing encumburance? Player with 8 str carrying around a house worth of material or 1000s+ gold
Not Enforcing DCs on things? Player with 8 Dex in Full plate can walk that 2 inch ledge as well as player with 20 dex and no armor.
Not enforcing Int restrictions? Player with 8 Int can make full tactical decisions as well as the Player.
Not Enforcing the 4th wall? Player who is not in room/building suddenly realizes his ally is in trouble and charges in to save the day with no reason to
Not enforcing decision time in battle? Players take 20+ minutes to find the optimum placement of their spells/PCs in a 6 second time frame.
Not Enforcing limited talking during battle? Players have long drawn out debate about which enemy should be attacked with said ability and if the enemy should be killed or not during a single turn in combat.

All of these things don't make sense in the DnD world but are 100% possible with players controlling PCs because a DM doesn't restrict the PC in the game for some reason.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-16, 01:03 PM

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-16, 01:20 PM

Int is a very heavily used attribute in my games. Investigation is used any time that knowing something merely is there isn't enough to decode useful information from it, which is very frequently. Various knowledge skills come up fairly frequently to gain useful hints about potential threats. Int is probably used more for skills than Wisdom is in my games, really (which works well because Wis saves are better).

I think the DM just needs to know when the int-based skills apply and use them. If you don't bother letting your players use the knowledge skills to learn crucial information and you let them use perception interchangeably with investigation then yeah, int is going to be pretty worthless.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-16, 01:45 PM

Int is a very heavily used attribute in my games. Investigation is used any time that knowing something merely is there isn't enough to decode useful information from it, which is very frequently. Various knowledge skills come up fairly frequently to gain useful hints about potential threats. Int is probably used more for skills than Wisdom is in my games, really (which works well because Wis saves are better).

Sure, but as has been pointed out already, (1) it generally suffices if one character in the group has these skills, and (2) the mechanical difference between a "dumb" character and an "average" character (int 8 or 10, respectively) is not really noticeable in gameplay.

Chronos

2015-02-16, 01:46 PM

Quoth hawklost:

Well of course they can. Its dnd after all and if a DM doesn't enforce restrictions then players can do many things.
OK, and just what rule are you proposing that the DM should enforce, here?

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-16, 01:56 PM

Sure, but as has been pointed out already, (1) it generally suffices if one character in the group has these skills, and (2) the mechanical difference between a "dumb" character and an "average" character (int 8 or 10, respectively) is not really noticeable in gameplay.

1. How so? Someone with a high attribute mod can still absolutely fail to meet the check, especially if it's difficult (DC 15-20). Hell, I'd argue int benefits more than many other skills for having a high modifier; if two people roll well on a knowledge check, they might learn two separate but related bits of information

2. Is that any different than the bard with 8 strength vs the bard with 10 strength, or the druid with 8 charisma vs 10 charisma? It's only a difference of 2, what more do you want?

Kurald Galain

2015-02-16, 02:10 PM

2. Is that any different than the bard with 8 strength vs the bard with 10 strength, or the druid with 8 charisma vs 10 charisma? It's only a difference of 2, what more do you want?

What more do I want? A reason not to dump every stat that isn't my primary or secondary attribute.

hymer

2015-02-16, 02:16 PM

I'm toying with an idea about each +1 to Int being worth 1 something point. Such a point can be converted into a language or a tool proficiency. Three or four of them can be converted into a skill proficiency in an Int skill.
I'm hesitant to put it in, as I've yet to see a wizard in a game beyond the most basic. I also don't know what should happen when someone adds to their intelligence over levels, or don a Headband of Intellect.

mephnick

2015-02-16, 02:21 PM

I'm fine with it the way it is, honestly.

Like someone said before, there's no reason the vast majority of adventurers should have above average intelligence. Those people would be scientists, bankers and researchers. Sorcerers, monks, warlocks and clerics don't necessarily have the intelligence to put their powers to use in other ways.

It already breaks realism a bit to have wizard adventurers. Why would you be an adventurer if you were a wizard?

So you have the odd wizard who wants to travel the world, and everyone else has average intelligence. Seems right to me.

mephnick

2015-02-16, 02:24 PM

I'd also hesitate to acknowledge Battlemaster/Warblade maneuvers needing intelligence.

I think strength and dexterity would work just fine, it's simply fighting skill and mastery over your body.

If I asked you what you thought the average intelligence (as portrayed in DnD) of a professional athlete or martial artist was, I doubt you'd reply with "consistently well above average".

Shining Wrath

2015-02-16, 02:40 PM

As a personal houserule, I don't allow characters to begin with mental states (IWCh) less than 8.

If your intelligence is too low, you can't learn how to use your weapons or spells. Even a martial character has to learn to parry with the flat and strike with the edge.
If your wisdom is too low, you lack the self-awareness necessary to learn anything that involves manipulating your own body - as an example, I've a autistic stepson, and he had a terrible time learning Tae Kwon Do because he simply could not "feel" what his own body was doing.
If your charisma is too low, you will not be able to persuade anyone to give you your initial training. You'll be the literal wallflower

This can only matter if someone rolls stats or wants to play a non-standard race (e.g., full orc).

Chronos

2015-02-16, 02:41 PM

But if you asked for the average intelligence of a high-ranking military officer, you probably would get that answer.

Shining Wrath

2015-02-16, 02:46 PM

But if you asked for the average intelligence of a high-ranking military officer, you probably would get that answer.

Which is because there's obviously a couple of skills not listed on the player sheet which NPCs might have.

Military Tactics - the ability to command an army, or a significant subset of one, to outmaneuver another army
Management - if you hire a seneschal to manage your castle while you are off adventuring, you want someone who is good at running things

There's doubtless more, but these two Int-based skills would be desirable for NPCs, but not particularly useful for a PC (unless the DM wants to put the party in charge of an army and then abstract the results of combat down to skill checks).

mephnick

2015-02-16, 02:46 PM

But if you asked for the average intelligence of a high-ranking military officer, you probably would get that answer.

Sure, but 99% of Battlemasters aren't high ranking military officers. They're good at fighting.They could be, if they chose a high intelligence and roleplayed themselves into that role. That has nothing to do with a class that can disarm and push enemies. Intellect has nothing to do with tripping people, or feinting for an ally. Those are physical skills.

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-16, 02:58 PM

What more do I want? A reason not to dump every stat that isn't my primary or secondary attribute.

And my point was that it's no more apparent with intelligence than it is any other attribute other than constitution. It's not an issue with the intelligence attribute (which is the subject of this thread), but with D&D's attribute system as a whole.

Dalebert

2015-02-16, 03:13 PM

This thread seems to imply that this isn't the case. Rather characters can have an 8 or less for their Int score and still be tactical geniuses.

Not enforcing Int restrictions? Player with 8 Int can make full tactical decisions as well as the Player.

The implication here is a little disturbing. Do you actually step in and tell a person they can't decide to do something? They're not in control of their character? In most of the other cases, they're just attempting to do something and you can have them roll based on the stat/skill and set a DC to see if they succeed at it.

I'm not at all sure that tactics falls under Int or that it should. If it did, you'd potentially be required to volunteer tactical info to the characters for a good Int roll and/or make them roll if the player wants to execute a plan to see if their character is able to think of it. I don't think you want to go down that path. You already control so much of the world as DM. It seems the players should essentially control what their characters decide to do both for their benefit and your sanity. Now if a player decides their character is tactically stupid and thinks it's fun to roleplay that, that's something else.

We already volunteer info for certain skill rolls, like knowledge rolls, perception ("you found a secret panel inside the fireplace"), but do you want to start intervening in player decisions almost constantly during a battle and even many other scenarios based on a tactics roll? Yikes.

mephnick

2015-02-16, 03:18 PM

All geeks on the internet walk around like they're holding an 18 INT, but most of us are probably holding a 10.

Your 8 INT fighter/adventurer can probably think of any tactics you can.

Naanomi

2015-02-16, 03:28 PM

But if you asked for the average intelligence of a high-ranking military officer, you probably would get that answer.
High ranking offers are rarely those also the most skilled in the field

Shining Wrath

2015-02-16, 03:41 PM

All geeks on the internet walk around like they're holding an 18 INT, but most of us are probably holding a 10.

Your 8 INT fighter/adventurer can probably think of any tactics you can.

It is of course hard to translate our skills into those of a PC, but I think most of us are brighter than average in this world.

Compare the spelling and grammar on this board to, say, the Yahoo! comments on a news story.

rollingForInit

2015-02-16, 03:43 PM

And my point was that it's no more apparent with intelligence than it is any other attribute other than constitution. It's not an issue with the intelligence attribute (which is the subject of this thread), but with D&D's attribute system as a whole.

By dumping Int you only lose knowledge checks and Investigation. By dumping Str you lose Athletics, as well as carrying capacity. By dumping Dex you lose several decent skills (stealth for instance), as well as initiative and a universal attack stat for ranged weapons, and one of the most common saves. By dumping Wisdom you lose Perception, which is arguably one of the most important skills in the game, and one of the most common saves in the game. Constitution leaves you without decent HP.

Dumping Int and dumping Cha only loses skills and rare saves. Therefore, they are mechanically worse. Charisma is slightly better only because there are many classes that benefit from it, leading to many more builds where Charisma is important.

All geeks on the internet walk around like they're holding an 18 INT, but most of us are probably holding a 10.

Your 8 INT fighter/adventurer can probably think of any tactics you can.

Yeah. Int 8 is just slightly less smart than the average person. It could be roleplayed as someone who cannot think tactically, imo. But it could be roleplayed as someone who just didn't get any education, or someone who's really bad with numbers and patterns.

Anderlith

2015-02-16, 07:11 PM

When I started this thread it wasn't to attack low int characters, but to find ways to make Int more useful to classes other than just the wizard.

I'm hoping for Int based manuevers & more Int based classes, like the Factotum or the Alchemist from pathfinder

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-16, 07:38 PM

By dumping Int you only lose knowledge checks and Investigation. By dumping Str you lose Athletics, as well as carrying capacity. By dumping Dex you lose several decent skills (stealth for instance), as well as initiative and a universal attack stat for ranged weapons, and one of the most common saves. By dumping Wisdom you lose Perception, which is arguably one of the most important skills in the game, and one of the most common saves in the game. Constitution leaves you without decent HP.

Dumping Int and dumping Cha only loses skills and rare saves. Therefore, they are mechanically worse. Charisma is slightly better only because there are many classes that benefit from it, leading to many more builds where Charisma is important.

I would argue for anything other than a frontline warrior who needs to carry heavy armor, athletics isn't anywhere close to as important as knowledge skills or investigate.

Dex is probably a more important skill than Int, but only because of saves, AC and initiative - I would argue that, unless you want to go with a stealth-focused party, the int skills are probably a bit more important than the dex skills.

One of my points earlier was that I think people use Perception often when Investigation is a more appropriate skill.

Chronos

2015-02-16, 10:41 PM

Alerad

2015-02-16, 11:41 PM

I allow players to make intelligence checks to determine what an enemy is likely to do in a given round of battle. This gives value to the ready action, which, let's face it, exists solely for tactical purposes.

I agree. Arcana, Nature and Religion can nicely cover all the creature types and spells that the players can face. You can think of some check, active or passive, based on spell level or creature CR to determine if your players can remember a crucial fact which can help them in battle.
(I'm thinking of using 12 + spell level passive checks to allow my players to recognize what spell is being cast by its words/gestures. When maxed out it covers all 9 spell levels.)

History can give you some ready information on political situations between countries, cities or noble families', which other characters will have to find through bribes or intimidation.

Enemies can refuse to speak Common, or social interactions can be easier if you speak their language. I assume enemies can also shout to each other in battle, just like players do, so if you speak Goblin, congratulations, the first attack against you has Disadvantage, because the hobgoblin didn't expect you to understand that he ordered the others to shoot you down.

You can also think of ways to add Intelligence saving throws in some situations. Players about to do something stupid (by their characters' standards)? Roll Int Save to see if they realize their mistake on time. (Or is this Wisdom again?)

Lastly, maybe imposing restrictions on characters with low Int isn't a very good idea. As long as they have 8 or more maybe you shouldn't.
That's the lowest you can have with the standard array after all.
But if you have 5? That's as low as an ogre. I'd rule that such a character can legitimately enter a weapon shop and buy a magic sword, only to discover much later that it was fake.:smallamused:

rollingForInit

2015-02-17, 04:10 AM

I would argue for anything other than a frontline warrior who needs to carry heavy armor, athletics isn't anywhere close to as important as knowledge skills or investigate.

Dex is probably a more important skill than Int, but only because of saves, AC and initiative - I would argue that, unless you want to go with a stealth-focused party, the int skills are probably a bit more important than the dex skills.

One of my points earlier was that I think people use Perception often when Investigation is a more appropriate skill.

Yes, of course how much it matters will depend on what you're building. How important the various skills are will always vary between adventures, and hopefully it'll even out over a campaign so that everyone can shine with their skills. I'm not trying to say that Investigation or knowledge skills are bad - they aren't. But you lose more, mechanically, in general, from dumping Str, Con, Dex or Wis. Intelligence is mechanically worse, and there are very few builds where it does anything for the class itself to the point that it's worth boosting it to 14+, because doing so would rob you of ability scores that are important to the class itself.

For me, it's just sad that there are very few builds where it's worth having Int as one of your main ability scores. Sure, I could build a Thief with 16 Dex and 16 Int, but it'd only give me good skills. There are no mechanical benefits from it for the class. Not for combat, or any sort of utility.

Would've been neat if the Warlock was Int-based instead of Cha-based - that would've made things a bit more varied. Or if you could play a Bard who used Int for spellcasting, and was more of a witty rather than a charming bard. Or if you could have a Ranger with Int as a spellcasting ability instead of Wisdom.

4e was great in having classes that utilised the various ability scores.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-17, 05:01 AM

Yes, of course how much it matters will depend on what you're building. How important the various skills are will always vary between adventures, and hopefully it'll even out over a campaign so that everyone can shine with their skills. I'm not trying to say that Investigation or knowledge skills are bad - they aren't. But you lose more, mechanically, in general, from dumping Str, Con, Dex or Wis. Intelligence is mechanically worse, and there are very few builds where it does anything for the class itself to the point that it's worth boosting it to 14+, because doing so would rob you of ability scores that are important to the class itself.

For me, it's just sad that there are very few builds where it's worth having Int as one of your main ability scores. Sure, I could build a Thief with 16 Dex and 16 Int, but it'd only give me good skills. There are no mechanical benefits from it for the class. Not for combat, or any sort of utility.

Would've been neat if the Warlock was Int-based instead of Cha-based - that would've made things a bit more varied. Or if you could play a Bard who used Int for spellcasting, and was more of a witty rather than a charming bard. Or if you could have a Ranger with Int as a spellcasting ability instead of Wisdom.

4e was great in having classes that utilised the various ability scores.

To be fair, I think 5E is a big improvement over 4E in this area. In 4E, pretty much every class benefits from dumping three (and sometimes even four!) ability scores to the minimum allowed. The problem with using the highest of score A or score B for e.g. a defense is that it means you can pick one and completely ignore the other.

This also means that a DM should be careful to not let characters use perception in the place of investigation (or vice versa) if the character has good wis but poor int. There's some overlap here, after all.

hymer

2015-02-17, 05:06 AM

The problem with using the highest of score A or score B for e.g. a defense is that it means you can pick one and completely ignore the other.

There is one more annoyance with this: You'll rarely see characters with both A and B high. If your PC concept seemed to invite having both those scores high, you will suffer mechanically. 5e has that same thing for strength and dexterity. Pumping one favours dumping the other, though there are some niche cases that might want both as high as possible.

Giant2005

2015-02-17, 05:38 AM

The implication here is a little disturbing. Do you actually step in and tell a person they can't decide to do something? They're not in control of their character? In most of the other cases, they're just attempting to do something and you can have them roll based on the stat/skill and set a DC to see if they succeed at it.

I'm not at all sure that tactics falls under Int or that it should. If it did, you'd potentially be required to volunteer tactical info to the characters for a good Int roll and/or make them roll if the player wants to execute a plan to see if their character is able to think of it. I don't think you want to go down that path. You already control so much of the world as DM. It seems the players should essentially control what their characters decide to do both for their benefit and your sanity. Now if a player decides their character is tactically stupid and thinks it's fun to roleplay that, that's something else.

We already volunteer info for certain skill rolls, like knowledge rolls, perception ("you found a secret panel inside the fireplace"), but do you want to start intervening in player decisions almost constantly during a battle and even many other scenarios based on a tactics roll? Yikes.

Of course I would.
Someone with an Int of 3 that devises some strategy that would earn the admiration of a military genius would have to pass a check in the exact same way as if a person with Dex 3 would if they tried to use a tightrope. Someone might get lucky and perform above their means but otherwise they are limited by their stats - I treat Int the exact same way I treat every other attribute and I recommend you do too.

rollingForInit

2015-02-17, 09:57 AM

To be fair, I think 5E is a big improvement over 4E in this area. In 4E, pretty much every class benefits from dumping three (and sometimes even four!) ability scores to the minimum allowed. The problem with using the highest of score A or score B for e.g. a defense is that it means you can pick one and completely ignore the other.

This also means that a DM should be careful to not let characters use perception in the place of investigation (or vice versa) if the character has good wis but poor int. There's some overlap here, after all.

I mostly agree with you. What I meant is that 4e succeeded in having various classes that benefited from various features. Want to play a melee character with high int? You could, without suffering mechanically, because there were classes that got boosts from it. If not as a primary score, then as a secondary score. Now, that resulted in other issues, such as classes having to be built in specific manners. Still, I think 5e could take some of it to open up for more options for other ability scores. Why does Int have only 1 full class and 2 30% classes, while Charisma has 3 full classes and 1 half?

Of course I would.
Someone with an Int of 3 that devises some strategy that would earn the admiration of a military genius would have to pass a check in the exact same way as if a person with Dex 3 would if they tried to use a tightrope. Someone might get lucky and perform above their means but otherwise they are limited by their stats - I treat Int the exact same way I treat every other attribute and I recommend you do too.

My guess is that Dalebert wasn't talking about the rare, fringe situation where there's a character with Int 3, but about the much more common situation where Int is dumped to 8, which is slightly below average. Which is what Int is generally dumped to, since dumping is generally done with points buy, and you cannot lower a score to less than 8. To get a 3 you'd have to roll (extremely badly, it's like a 0.007% chance, or something like that).

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-17, 09:57 AM

But again, the problem with Int is that only one person needs to be smart. Once you've got a wizard in the party, he'll do the Arcana-ing and Investigation-ing and History-ing, and tell everyone else what he's learned. Yes, the others can roll, too, and they might get lucky and learn more than the wizard did... but unless you make some real sacrifices to your other capabilities, learning more than the wizard did is going to be pretty unlikely.

I've addressed this already. Even if you have a wizard in the party AND he takes proficiency in 4 INT skills (neither of which are guaranteed, or even likely), that's still only one chance to make any particular check, which is substantially worse than having 3 people with a reasonable shot at it.

Giant2005

2015-02-17, 10:09 AM

My guess is that Dalebert wasn't talking about the rare, fringe situation where there's a character with Int 3, but about the much more common situation where Int is dumped to 8, which is slightly below average. Which is what Int is generally dumped to, since dumping is generally done with points buy, and you cannot lower a score to less than 8. To get a 3 you'd have to roll (extremely badly, it's like a 0.007% chance, or something like that).

I'd be a lot more lenient with an Int 8 guy than an Int 3 guys that is for sure and if he wasn't the main driving force in the party that was devising all of their plans and manipulating effects, I'd probably let it go entirely. Keep in mind that Int 8 isn't really slightly below average - it is 3.5 points below the human average (3D6+1) which is quite a significant margin. It is almost twice as close to the intelligence of an Ape (Int 6) than it is to the average human.

Naanomi

2015-02-17, 10:33 AM

It is almost twice as close to the intelligence of an Ape (Int 6) than it is to the average human.Some apes, and other primates, are reasonable tacticians; presumably they would be moreso if they had spoken language to assist them.

Shining Wrath

2015-02-17, 11:14 AM

Demonic Spoon is correct that having only one person with the Int-based skills in the party means that if that person rolls a '1' on their D20 you are at a dead stop. Then the other 3 can roll at -1 on their check and try to make, e.g., a DC 15 difficult check with 20% chance each (about a 50-50 chance one will succeed).

If you want to add uses for Intelligence to your campaign, I'd like to suggest that many tools don't have an ability score associated with their use, but ought to. The gaming sets might be Wisdom (you're looking for "tells" in the other guy) or Intelligence; the crafting tools, Intelligence for the most part. Herbalism kit is probably Wisdom.

Kryx

2015-02-17, 11:21 AM

Demonic Spoon is correct that having only one person with the Int-based skills in the party means that if that person rolls a '1' on their D20 you are at a dead stop.
In my experience the people without the skills will use the Help Action to decrease the likelihood of this.

TheDeadlyShoe

2015-02-17, 11:27 AM

Hopefully the DM has the INT stat to apply a modicum of reasonableness to what you can use Help on.

I think when people say there should be some reason to take INT, they just mean that there should be SOME mechanical benefit to INT rather than basically zero.

Knowledge skills should probably have been split off entirely from the rest of the skills system; then INT could completely control the amount of Knowledge skills you have. *shrug*

A house rule that just occured to me would be adding your INT score to critical hit damage, modeling your ability to analyze your opponent and identify vulnerabilities.

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-17, 11:31 AM

Demonic Spoon is correct that having only one person with the Int-based skills in the party means that if that person rolls a '1' on their D20 you are at a dead stop. Then the other 3 can roll at -1 on their check and try to make, e.g., a DC 15 difficult check with 20% chance each (about a 50-50 chance one will succeed).

That also implies that everyone can even make the check, which isn't really a given. I probably wouldn't allow an int 8 half-orc with no background or proficiency in magic to make an Arcana check to recall arcane lore, for example.

In my experience the people without the skills will use the Help Action to decrease the likelihood of this.

Help only applies for things that someone else could reasonably help with (that's RAW, per the "receiving help from others" header in the skills section of the PHB). No one else can help you know something.

Kryx

2015-02-17, 11:37 AM

Help only applies for things that someone else could reasonably help with (that's RAW, per the "receiving help from others" header in the skills section of the PHB). No one else can help you know something.
That's my thought as well, but I'm sure my players will argue that they could help them remember, or think of it.

But I think you're right.

Chronos

2015-02-17, 11:45 AM

Sure they can. Other people can ask probing questions, or bring up other related facts.

A good example is in Schlock Mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-02-15) a couple of days ago: The heroes are trying to figure out how to attack an enemy that's stormed the city armory. Sorlie (the white-haired one) figures out that they have access to a weapon that can shoot past barriers, but she only does so on prompting from Katherine (black hair) and Murtagh (red hair), who help to outline the exact parameters of the problem, and why other proposed solutions won't work. The other two, meanwhile, already knew that they had that weapon, but didn't think to use it because they were fixated on its limitations, or on more conventional lines of attack.

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-17, 11:50 AM

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 11:58 AM

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-17, 12:09 PM

In that case, you are using a house rule that has no relevance to the importance of Int in 5e. There is no restriction about needing skills to make knowledge checks, and an int 8 half Orc barbarian has the same right to make the check as an int 18 wizard, just with a penalty on his roll. Maybe he heard the tribe's shaman say something relevant, or he was drinking in a bar when some adventurers were telling stories.

The DM is specifically empowered to decide when a character should make a skill check. Nowhere in the PHB or DMG does it say that if one person is told to roll to recall some lore, that everyone gets to roll to recall that thing at the same DC.

A canonical, RAW-compliant exchange might be:

Bob the Wizard: "Do I know about any magic that could have transformed this merchant into a chicken?"
DM: "Roll an Intelligence (Arcana) check"
Bob the Wizard: <Rolls a 6, 11 total>)
DM: "Nope, you don't know anything of that sort."
Bill the 8-int Barbarian: "Do I know anything about magic that could have transformed this merchant into a chicken?"
DM: "Nope"

Shining Wrath

2015-02-17, 12:11 PM

Again, per RAW to Help another you have some reason why you'd be able to help. This is a rulings not rules situation, but a skill where you have no proficiency, is unrelated to your class, archetype, and background, and is associated with an ability score you dumped - I think many / most DM's are going to rule you can't help at all, or roll with Disadvantage.

Barbarian Dwarf Outsider trying to remember History of the Elven Library of K'Narth knows something why? He heard it in a bar? His Int is 8, he doesn't remember stuff he hears while drinking.

rollingForInit

2015-02-17, 12:38 PM

I'd be a lot more lenient with an Int 8 guy than an Int 3 guys that is for sure and if he wasn't the main driving force in the party that was devising all of their plans and manipulating effects, I'd probably let it go entirely. Keep in mind that Int 8 isn't really slightly below average - it is 3.5 points below the human average (3D6+1) which is quite a significant margin. It is almost twice as close to the intelligence of an Ape (Int 6) than it is to the average human.

It was previously discussed earlier in this thread, but the scale likely isn't linear. The jump from Int 3 to Int 13 is much more significant than 10 to 17. 17 isn't something beyond our wildest comprehension, which an average person would probably be to an Int 3 animal (e.g. a horse). Or compare Int 6 animals to an Int 10 human, and then the Int 10 human to the Int 16 human. So it doesn't make sense to treat is as linear and say that an Int 8 person is halfway down the intellect to a monkey.

I think when people say there should be some reason to take INT, they just mean that there should be SOME mechanical benefit to INT rather than basically zero.

That is what I've been saying, at least.

In that case, you are using a house rule that has no relevance to the importance of Int in 5e. There is no restriction about needing skills to make knowledge checks, and an int 8 half Orc barbarian has the same right to make the check as an int 18 wizard, just with a penalty on his roll. Maybe he heard the tribe's shaman say something relevant, or he was drinking in a bar when some adventurers were telling stories.

I would probably rule that some skill checks are impossible for some people while automatic for others. For instance, if the party was investigating some sort of rare magical phenomenon and I know that the Wizard has studied similar things, I might allow the Wizard to just know what it is (because it feels likely to me the he would), and I'd just tell the rest that their characters don't know because it's too esoteric.

As a general rule, though, I definitely agree, and I'd let everyone roll.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-17, 12:52 PM

The DM is specifically empowered to decide when a character should make a skill check. Nowhere in the PHB or DMG does it say that if one person is told to roll to recall some lore, that everyone gets to roll to recall that thing at the same DC.

That strikes me as an Oberoni fallacy, though.

mephnick

2015-02-17, 01:19 PM

I thought helping each other with skills required proficiency on both sides.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I believe the example was someone without proficiency in tools not being to help someone with tools.

Giant2005

2015-02-17, 01:19 PM

It was previously discussed earlier in this thread, but the scale likely isn't linear. The jump from Int 3 to Int 13 is much more significant than 10 to 17. 17 isn't something beyond our wildest comprehension, which an average person would probably be to an Int 3 animal (e.g. a horse). Or compare Int 6 animals to an Int 10 human, and then the Int 10 human to the Int 16 human. So it doesn't make sense to treat is as linear and say that an Int 8 person is halfway down the intellect to a monkey.

But that has no basis whatsoever. All of the other stats are perfectly linear, parity would dictate that Intelligence is treated in the same way and in absence of evidence we should be giving the stats equal weight.
Besides, Eagles have an Int of 8 too and it isn't like they are rocket scientists compared to an Ape, so that really blows the non-linearity theory out of the water. It also highlights how comparatively stupid being 3.5 points below the average really is - your Int 8 character is as smart as a bird.

Myzz

2015-02-17, 01:20 PM

This also means that a DM should be careful to not let characters use perception in the place of investigation (or vice versa) if the character has good wis but poor int. There's some overlap here, after all.

I think this is the main problem with people dumping INT, especially in order to grab WIS to notice things.

If you tell them something they notice but were not looking for you allow the player to use his INT to deduce what that means... Vice waiting until he states he looking for what he already noticed, or someone else brings up something about something he already noticed.

Seeing something and being able to deduce that it is important are not the Perception skill...

Perception was only to see it.

Investigation allows you to deduce that it is important and how so.

If the DM just doles out the info from Perception, then he over values Perception and WIS, but if he also requires Investigation he minimizes Perception from being a GodStat to functional and puts INT usefulness back into the game. Your not taking roleplay opportunities away from characters... AND at the same time requiring the character to utilize INT to realize the things that he sees are relevant.

If characters decide they just want to share everything they see with the party, it would encumber travel in inconsequential details.

WHICH is the other way to handle High Perception and low INT, share everything. Flood the group with so many useless facts that Character B is noticing that when something important pops up they might actually miss it.

IF as the DM, you filter info (which I do, to streamline and speed up gameplay) then you should be applying INT to what is noticed to ensure the character regards it as relevant. If you have not been flooding them with inconsequential things he notices then what you did point out he notices must be relevant in some way... Life threatening situations being the lone exception since anyone of any intelligence would say life threatening situations are relevant.

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 01:22 PM

I would probably rule that some skill checks are impossible for some people while automatic for others. For instance, if the party was investigating some sort of rare magical phenomenon and I know that the Wizard has studied similar things, I might allow the Wizard to just know what it is (because it feels likely to me the he would), and I'd just tell the rest that their characters don't know because it's too esoteric.

And indeed, if the ruling is "wizards make an int check" maybe the barbarian can't roll. If it is an int check on the history of barbarian tribes, maybe barbarians can roll and wizards can't.

But in the rules, nowhere is it remotely suggested that people with low stats can't make skill checks. They specifically can, that's why there is a penalty. Yes, the DM can rule however they want to. But ruling that the 8 int barbarian can't make knowledge checks is a pretty unfair house rule. Does the 8 str wizard auto fail climbing checks too?

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 01:28 PM

Barbarian Dwarf Outsider trying to remember History of the Elven Library of K'Narth knows something why? He heard it in a bar? His Int is 8, he doesn't remember stuff he hears while drinking.

Sure he does. Just not as well. That's why there is a penalty. If having low int gave you disadvantage or other penalties on knowledge rules per raw, it would say so, just like a low str character is at a disadvantage in his stealth checks in plate mail. And even that isn't auto fail.

I thought helping each other with skills required proficiency on both sides.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I believe the example was someone without proficiency in tools not being to help someone with tools.

You are correct on the tool example (PHB 175) because the rules say that if you don't have proficiency, you can't use thieves tools. If you don't have proficiency in a skill (PHB 174 bottom) you use a normal skill check. Whether a knowledge check is something in which another person can assist I have no opinion and see no rule.

hawklost

2015-02-17, 01:42 PM

And indeed, if the ruling is "wizards make an int check" maybe the barbarian can't roll. If it is an int check on the history of barbarian tribes, maybe barbarians can roll and wizards can't.

But in the rules, nowhere is it remotely suggested that people with low stats can't make skill checks. They specifically can, that's why there is a penalty. Yes, the DM can rule however they want to. But ruling that the 8 int barbarian can't make knowledge checks is a pretty unfair house rule. Does the 8 str wizard auto fail climbing checks too?

No, but there are examples of characters with no proficiency not being able to make checks.

If the barbarian had Prof in History or Arcana then yea, even with his int 8 he could attempt to remember something he read. Without the Prof though some things are impossible to know no matter how smart you are (even int 20 characters know nothing on Arcana if they never bothered studying it.)

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 01:48 PM

No, but there are examples of characters with no proficiency not being able to make checks.

If the barbarian had Prof in History or Arcana then yea, even with his int 8 he could attempt to remember something he read. Without the Prof though some things are impossible to know no matter how smart you are (even int 20 characters know nothing on Arcana if they never bothered studying it.)

Cite please? PHB 174 bottom says that if you lack a proficiency you make a normal ability check. No one, int 18 or 8, needs Arcana to make an arcana check per RAW. Being a wizard doesn't help either per raw, (except that they can get Arcana proficiency and are likely to have high Int). If you are going to rule that people can't make checks they are allowed by rules, that should clearly be spelled out at chargen. There are rules that certain tools require tool proficiency, but they are clearly described.

And remember that unless you have long amounts of downtime, you will never get more skills. Conan, at level 20, has been murdering wizards and demons and looting magical items for 19 levels, but he still doesn't get Arcana unless he spent a feat on it. He may not be good at it, but the rules allow him a roll.

TheDeadlyShoe

2015-02-17, 02:00 PM

Allowing the whole party to make rolls on any given check is indefensible from a gameplay POV. It makes it very unlikely to fail reasonable checks, while tougher checks have a low probability for even a proficient character. It slows the game down because of needless dice rolling. It deemphasizes even having skills in the first place. The random idiots that comprise your party have as good a chance of knowing Fact X as the skilled person does.

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-17, 02:01 PM

That strikes me as an Oberoni fallacy, though.

No. There is a general rule for how skill checks work, and no specific rules overrule that general rule.

And indeed, if the ruling is "wizards make an int check" maybe the barbarian can't roll. If it is an int check on the history of barbarian tribes, maybe barbarians can roll and wizards can't.

But in the rules, nowhere is it remotely suggested that people with low stats can't make skill checks. They specifically can, that's why there is a penalty. Yes, the DM can rule however they want to. But ruling that the 8 int barbarian can't make knowledge checks is a pretty unfair house rule. Does the 8 str wizard auto fail climbing checks too?

It's about more than the 8 int, it's about the fact that the barbarian has no means of having learned about, for example, magic. If he had 14 int and/or Arcana proficiency you could make the argument otherwise (the latter being most important; the check for a barbarian with no magical training or knowledge but merely higher int would be very hard).

The rules don't need to say that people with low stats can't make a skill check. The rules instead say that the DM decides who makes skill checks and when. It's not a houserule, it's simply a logical application of a power given explicitly to DMs by the PHB. The canonical way that a skill check is made is the player says "I do X" (in the case of knowledge, "X" is "try to recall information about") and the DM decides which check ,if any, is appropriate for the situation. If it's simply not possible for a particular character to make a particular check, then it's perfectly normal and expected for the DM to not even bother having the player roll.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-17, 02:16 PM

No. There is a general rule for how skill checks work, and no specific rules overrule that general rule.

Yes. It's a clear of example of a case where the rules don't actually work, "but it's ok because the DM can fix it".

Submortimer

2015-02-17, 02:21 PM

Honestly, it doesn't bother me at ALL to have the fighter, Cleric or Rogue dumping Int, in the same way that it doesnt bother me when the rogue or wizard dumps strength or the cleric dumps Dexterity. The classic party is the buff, manly (But not so bright) fighter, the nimble rogue, the Wise cleric, and the hyper smart wizard. we play around with that a lot in game nowadays, since there are a lot more options, but the basics still remain: each person in the group has something specific to contribute. The fighter knocks down doors and kills things with his murderstick; the rogue disables all the traps and does the scouting; the cleric does the buffing, the religious study thing, and the healing; and the wizard casts fireball and deciphers ancient scripts and lost tomes.

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-17, 02:21 PM

Yes. It's a clear of example of a case where the rules don't actually work, "but it's ok because the DM can fix it".

What? There's nothing for the DM to fix. The DM simply uses the RAW, which is to decide an appropriate DC for a task that a character is attempting.

hawklost

2015-02-17, 02:27 PM

Cite please? PHB 174 bottom says that if you lack a proficiency you make a normal ability check. No one, int 18 or 8, needs Arcana to make an arcana check per RAW. Being a wizard doesn't help either per raw, (except that they can get Arcana proficiency and are likely to have high Int). If you are going to rule that people can't make checks they are allowed by rules, that should clearly be spelled out at chargen. There are rules that certain tools require tool proficiency, but they are clearly described.

And remember that unless you have long amounts of downtime, you will never get more skills. Conan, at level 20, has been murdering wizards and demons and looting magical items for 19 levels, but he still doesn't get Arcana unless he spent a feat on it. He may not be good at it, but the rules allow him a roll.

So by your logic, Person A, who has spent his entire life inside on an island away from the world and the island has been cut off from the world for hundreds of years should be allowed to make a history check for which noble house is against another just because nothing in the PHB says that they shouldn't?

See, the game still states for the DM to make a call if a skill can even be attempted. A Noble with int 8 making that check? Sure, relevant information to him. a Barbarian who studies history? Sure, he studied information related to history (even then, possibly not if the in fighting was never recorded in history). a Person who knows nothing of history and has no reason to know that information? Not a chance. All 3 of these people could be in the same group.

And for your reference to Conan, well, he actually would probably get a check to find some information out, because that information is now Relevant to his history (his leveling). But if a DM allowed him to pick up a new magical item he has never experienced before and name all its properties just because he killed wizards in the past, I would be upset with the DM. A Wizard with the same background as Conan though might name off more information because they understand magic.

RL example.
Most people who are older have been driving cars for a long time, they understand basic information like MPG and RPM and steering control. So when they look at a new car they have never before seen, they would be able to pick up on that information pretty easily if they tried. But if a new car came out without the Restricter, B-Piller or a Release Fork and they would not know it was missing or added by just looking at the vehicle. a Wizard without prof (race enthusiast who likes watching) might understand some of that information and a Wizard with Prof (car enthusiast, mechanic) should be able to pick up on all that info.

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 02:35 PM

It's about more than the 8 int, it's about the fact that the barbarian has no means of having learned about, for example, magic. If he had 14 int and/or Arcana proficiency you could make the argument otherwise (the latter being most important; the check for a barbarian with no magical training or knowledge but merely higher int would be very hard).

This part is entirely imaginary. It directly contradicts how the book adjudicates making a proficiency check without the relevant skill. It doesn't say "only people with high stats can attempt this roll". It never at any point suggests that the magic using classes have some benefit at knowing about Arcana other than some of them having it in their skill description. (Because lets face it, being a non-caster isn't enough of a drawback without making up additional penalties that aren't in the rules). The DCs are set based on the difficulty of the task, not the skills or abilities of the person doing the task, that is why skills add a proficiency bonus and stats have a modifier.

The rules don't need to say that people with low stats can't make a skill check. The rules instead say that the DM decides who makes skill checks and when. It's not a houserule, it's simply a logical application of a power given explicitly to DMs by the PHB.

So, if it wouldn't be possible for Harry Potter to win an opposed strength check against Andre the Giant, the wizard player doesn't get to roll to resist the grapple? Fun!

The canonical way that a skill check is made is the player says "I do X" (in the case of knowledge, "X" is "try to recall information about") and the DM decides which check ,if any, is appropriate for the situation.

If it's simply not possible for a particular character to make a particular check, then it's perfectly normal and expected for the DM to not even bother having the player roll.

Indeed, if the fighter says, "I'm rolling to see if I can jump to the moon" that is not possible, and the DM should ignore a check. If the barbarian is rolling to see if he ever heard anything about magical rituals, that is UNLIKELY, and should get a DC. The DC isn't set based on his Int, or his class, it is based on how easy it is to know the particular information. If the wizard has a 15 DC to know about this cult's rituals, so does the barbarian, although he is a lot less likely to make his check. He may have had an uncle who was a shaman and told him about that ritual. He may have been an intended sacrifice as a child but he got rescued. He still gets to roll. That is how 5e works.

The other is a houserule. Not only that, but it is a poorly balanced houserule (the wizard still gets to make Str checks with his 8 str, but the barbarian can't make Int checks with his 8 int), and it is doubly cruel if you do not explicitly spell out in chargen that proficiencies in your game mean more than the book says that they do. And aside from being unbalanced and cruel, it isn't even fun. Giving players a chance at success is almost always more fun than simply telling them that they fail before trying.

Now, if the 8 int barbarian is trying to remember information that would be "Hard, very hard, or nearly impossible" (which means DC20+, for everyone), then he can't succeed, because he can't make a DC 20 roll.

Demonic Spoon

2015-02-17, 02:45 PM

The DCs are set by the DM. Stop calling it a houserule; the DM could say that the DC to jump to the moon is 10 and it wouldn't contradict RAW. The book does not say anywhere that every character is entitled to roll for any particular thing.

He still gets to roll. That is how 5e works.

No, it isn't. He gets to roll when the DM determines it makes sense for him to make a check. This is all spelled out in Chapter 1 of the PHB. You're inventing an equivalence that doesn't exist in the books, presumably because it did exist in prior editions.

The other is a houserule. Not only that, but it is a poorly balanced houserule (the wizard still gets to make Str checks with his 8 str, but the barbarian can't make Int checks with his 8 int), and it is doubly cruel if you do not explicitly spell out in chargen that proficiencies in your game mean more than the book says that they do. And aside from being unbalanced and cruel, it isn't even fun. Giving players a chance at success is almost always more fun than simply telling them that they fail before trying.

poorly balanced? Isn't this whole thread about how intelligence isn't as good as other attributes? Surely rule interpretations that favor intelligence make things more balanced than what other people here are saying, not less?

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 03:08 PM

The DCs are set by the DM. Stop calling it a houserule; the DM could say that the DC to jump to the moon is 10 and it wouldn't contradict RAW. The book does not say anywhere that every character is entitled to roll for any particular thing.

And they are not. I can't climb from 15 feet away from the wall for example. Ruling that barbarians can't make Arcana checks, on the other hand, is not impossible, thats just a bad houserule.

No, it isn't. He gets to roll when the DM determines it makes sense for him to make a check. This is all spelled out in Chapter 1 of the PHB. You're inventing an equivalence that doesn't exist in the books, presumably because it did exist in prior editions.

Oh, hey, good point. Chapter 1 says you are wrong also. P 174 is clearer, but chapter 1 p 7will do.

Step 1: roll the die and add the relevant modifier. This sometimes includes a proficiency bonus.

Step 2: apply circumstantial bonuses and penalties. Hawklost's "you were stuck all your life on an island with no knowledge of the outside" world would go here. I guess you could put a "-5 on arcana because I hate barbarians" mod here as well, although now we're back to being unbalanced and cruel.

Step 3. Compare with difficulty. DCs are based on ch 7, but clearly allude to the task, not the person, thats step 1 and 2.

And actually, it is you who is pulling inferences from prior editions. 3e had rules about high DC tasks for "untrained" skill users. 5e says you get to roll. That is because in 5e, the barbarian does not get to drop 1/2 skill rank in arcana just to make checks. He is assumed to be an adventurer and to have some chance of knowing about adventurer stuff (although that chance is low, based on his stat and lack of skill)

poorly balanced? Isn't this whole thread about how intelligence isn't as good as other attributes? Surely rule interpretations that favor intelligence make things more balanced, not less?

Very poorly balanced. Your argument can be summed up as "muggles need arcana (or at least a very high int) to know anything about magic." Not only is that never suggested anywhere in the rules, it is still pretty clear, even in 5e, that being a caster has lots of benefits over not being a caster. Skills are one of the ways that non-casters provide utility to their group, and your ruling limits them even in that. There are plenty of casters who lack int as their prime stat who would still get to roll under this rule because "obviously bards and warlocks know about magic".

Also, it isn't like your rule particularly favors Int. If you need a 14 int or arcana to make a roll, I am less likely to make a 10 or 12 int barbarian or fighter, since who cares if I am + or - 1 on a roll I can't even make...

And for your reference to Conan, well, he actually would probably get a check to find some information out, because that information is now Relevant to his history (his leveling). But if a DM allowed him to pick up a new magical item he has never experienced before and name all its properties just because he killed wizards in the past, I would be upset with the DM. A Wizard with the same background as Conan though might name off more information because they understand magic.

What is the DC to name all the properties of an item you just picked up? Is it 20? If so, a wizard can do it and an 8 int barbarian can't. A wizard might name off more information because they understand magic. That is determined in game by having Arcana proficiency and a high Int. The wizard, with the same roll, could well hit a DC 10 points higher than Conan, giving him a lot more information. And if the wizard rolls 5 and conan rolls 20? Maybe the sword is covered in Cimmerian runes and Conan has seen one like it before wielded by the chieftain of a tribe. Unlikely? Certainly! Possible? Certainly!

Kurald Galain

2015-02-17, 03:30 PM

This part is entirely imaginary. It directly contradicts how the book adjudicates making a proficiency check without the relevant skill. It doesn't say "only people with high stats can attempt this roll". It never at any point suggests that the magic using classes have some benefit at knowing about Arcana other than some of them having it in their skill description. (Because lets face it, being a non-caster isn't enough of a drawback without making up additional penalties that aren't in the rules). The DCs are set based on the difficulty of the task, not the skills or abilities of the person doing the task, that is why skills add a proficiency bonus and stats have a modifier.

I completely agree. Otherwise, what would be next? "Only people who paid for the pizza can make perception checks?" "Only the girl that the DM is hitting on can make wisdom saves?"

Shining Wrath

2015-02-17, 04:06 PM

... SNIP ...

Oh, hey, good point. Chapter 1 says you are wrong also. P 174 is clearer, but chapter 1 p 7will do.

Step 1: roll the die and add the relevant modifier. This sometimes includes a proficiency bonus.

Step 2: apply circumstantial bonuses and penalties. Hawklost's "you were stuck all your life on an island with no knowledge of the outside" world would go here. I guess you could put a "-5 on arcana because I hate barbarians" mod here as well, although now we're back to being unbalanced and cruel.

Step 3. Compare with difficulty. DCs are based on ch 7, but clearly allude to the task, not the person, thats step 1 and 2.

... SNIP ...

This is the process for rolling a skill check. This is not the process for determining whether or not every character in the party gets to roll. The distinction is important; in fact, it's pretty much the whole point.

By the "everyone gets to roll" logic, a party ought to drag a group of 50 commoners around in some sort of bags of holding (taking care to let air in from time to time), and every skill check they meet, dump out the serfs and let all 50 of them roll - you're almost guaranteed at least one 20 (93% chance). At 5 GP a day to hire 50 serfs, it'd be a pretty cheap way to have a high probability of knowing anything in the world with a DC less than 20. The serf army could also attempt to pick locks (loan them the tools), disable traps, Gather Information, make Intimidate rolls (hey, ONE of those peasants might be scary to a Balor, you never know!), and so on.

Or maybe you should have to have some in-game reason for being competent at something before rolling. As the rules say, the DM gets to decide who can help a character with a roll.

But if you want to allow your characters to benefit from dragging a bunch of serfs around everywhere as a poorly-dressed Hive Mind sage, go for it. There is no Bad Wrong Fun.

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 04:21 PM

This is the process for rolling a skill check. This is not the process for determining whether or not every character in the party gets to roll. The distinction is important; in fact, it's pretty much the whole point.

By the "everyone gets to roll" logic, a party ought to drag a group of 50 commoners around in some sort of bags of holding (taking care to let air in from time to time), and every skill check they meet, dump out the serfs and let all 50 of them roll - you're almost guaranteed at least one 20 (93% chance). At 5 GP a day to hire 50 serfs, it'd be a pretty cheap way to have a high probability of knowing anything in the world with a DC less than 20. The serf army could also attempt to pick locks (loan them the tools), disable traps, Gather Information, make Intimidate rolls (hey, ONE of those peasants might be scary to a Balor, you never know!), and so on.

Or maybe you should have to have some in-game reason for being competent at something before rolling. As the rules say, the DM gets to decide who can help a character with a roll.

But if you want to allow your characters to benefit from dragging a bunch of serfs around everywhere as a poorly-dressed Hive Mind sage, go for it. There is no Bad Wrong Fun.

Well, assuming that a task is low enough difficulty that joe average can succeed (DC 20 or below) you could do that. Except for disable traps. Thieves tools are one of the few things that do require proficiency.

But aside from the difficulties of dragging around 50 people wherever you go, that actually makes a lot of sense. If I asked some question from (say) French revolutionary history to 50 people, chances are pretty good that one of them would know it if it was widely known. Gather info? Totally! They fan out through the town, go to different bars, talk to different people, and one of them gets lucky and finds someone who saw the crime. Intimidate? You got 50 guys with you! Thats pretty scary. I don't see it becoming a widely used tactic (you would need 50 people willing to wander through the dungeon, you would have to keep them safe, etc). But really, 50 commoners (with slings) would pretty much crush most low level adventuring parties anyway, at most things. Bounded accuracy in action. If you plan to bring them along, you will be bringing them along for their butt kicking, not their skillmonkeyness.

And in any event, even if you wanted to (house)rule that NPCs can't make checks over a certain DC, 5e does not suggest that NPCs need to operate under the exact same rules as PCs. Trying to avoid peasant mob is not a good justification for not allowing PLAYERS to roll for their characters to see if they have a chance to know or do something.

And yes, the rules say that the DM can decide whether it makes sense to help another person with their roll. They say nothing about determining that people cannot make checks untrained (in fact, they go in the other direction), other than by the simple expedient of making the DC high enough that untrained people cannot succeed. You want to prevent peasant mob and barbarians from rolling? DC 22. Done. Hope your wizard gets a good roll.

hawklost

2015-02-17, 04:51 PM

Well, assuming that a task is low enough difficulty that joe average can succeed (DC 20 or below) you could do that. Except for disable traps. Thieves tools are one of the few things that do require proficiency.

But aside from the difficulties of dragging around 50 people wherever you go, that actually makes a lot of sense. If I asked some question from (say) French revolutionary history to 50 people, chances are pretty good that one of them would know it if it was widely known. Gather info? Totally! They fan out through the town, go to different bars, talk to different people, and one of them gets lucky and finds someone who saw the crime. Intimidate? You got 50 guys with you! Thats pretty scary. I don't see it becoming a widely used tactic (you would need 50 people willing to wander through the dungeon, you would have to keep them safe, etc). But really, 50 commoners (with slings) would pretty much crush most low level adventuring parties anyway, at most things. Bounded accuracy in action. If you plan to bring them along, you will be bringing them along for their butt kicking, not their skillmonkeyness.

And in any event, even if you wanted to (house)rule that NPCs can't make checks over a certain DC, 5e does not suggest that NPCs need to operate under the exact same rules as PCs. Trying to avoid peasant mob is not a good justification for not allowing PLAYERS to roll for their characters to see if they have a chance to know or do something.

And yes, the rules say that the DM can decide whether it makes sense to help another person with their roll. They say nothing about determining that people cannot make checks untrained (in fact, they go in the other direction), other than by the simple expedient of making the DC high enough that untrained people cannot succeed. You want to prevent peasant mob and barbarians from rolling? DC 22. Done. Hope your wizard gets a good roll.

And you are right, nothing in the PHB or DMG says that DMs should change the DC of a check, just add cercumstantial modifiers/
So, Wizard modifer for magical items? +0 assuming it isn't something he is specialized in or anything. Barbarian Modifer? -5 (Since he doesn't cast magic, or study how items are made or anything), well crap, the DC was 15 and he has a -1 to int, guess he doesn't get to Roll.
So, Wizard in no armor? DC 10 with no modifiers for climbing that cliff. Full Plate Wearing Fighter with a full pack and carrying a halfling on his back? -7 to his check but hey, he has no challenge really since he is good at that stuff.

BTW, that is no different than saying Wizard DC for magical items is 15 in this case and barbarians is 20 (no modifiers to roll though) and DC for Wizard on climb is 10 and on Fighter is 17. See, exactly the same.

Also,

Funny, I now want to see someone go around asking 50 random people off the street (who do not have the requisite skill set) questions that would be considered hard.

Stuff like:
Bio-medical Engineering knowledge (What is Biomedical Engineering)
Difference between a human Cell and Plant Cell (Difference between Cell Walls)
How many sides a Icosahedron has
How many Congressmen are in the US Federal Government
Heck, what kind of government is the US? Democracy, Republic, Democratic Republic, Federal Republic, Dictatorship, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Technocracy
Who wrote 'A Christmas Carol" (This I would say is not even a DC 15)

Remember though, you have to find people of 'average intellegence' (10) to do this. So you might want to find out what they do for a living and make sure they are not specialized (or have hobbies) in any field related to these questions first.

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 05:45 PM

And you are right, nothing in the PHB or DMG says that DMs should change the DC of a check, just add cercumstantial modifiers/
So, Wizard modifer for magical items? +0 assuming it isn't something he is specialized in or anything. Barbarian Modifer? -5 (Since he doesn't cast magic, or study how items are made or anything), well crap, the DC was 15 and he has a -1 to int, guess he doesn't get to Roll.
So, Wizard in no armor? DC 10 with no modifiers for climbing that cliff. Full Plate Wearing Fighter with a full pack and carrying a halfling on his back? -7 to his check but hey, he has no challenge really since he is good at that stuff.

BTW, that is no different than saying Wizard DC for magical items is 15 in this case and barbarians is 20 (no modifiers to roll though) and DC for Wizard on climb is 10 and on Fighter is 17. See, exactly the same.

Indeed. There is no rule that requires the DM to treat his players fairly and with courtesy. He can impose an "I hate barbarians" penalty. Its a pretty nasty thing to do, but it is legal in the same sense that just saying "barbarians cannot roll arcana" is not. But it is also unrelated to how Int works on checks in 5e. That is strictly a table issue. I wonder if casting guidance on the barbarian would also further alter the arbitrary circumstance penalty.

Note that your second example has nothing to do with wizards vs fighters and everything to do with the fighter carrying a guy on his back. If in that same example, you said "the DC is 10, but Mr. Wizard, you have no experience climbing cliffs so you have a -5 no rock climbing penalty" it would be fair. ER. Fairer. It would be fair if you imposed the "wizard skill check penalty" in about the same number of circumstances in which you imposed the "Barbarian skill check penalty". It would still be a pretty nasty thing to do to players if you didn't make it clear at chargen that you were altering the skill system in this way.

If you wanted to do this, without being arbitrary, you would set out a list of skill checks that classes are "bad at" at chargen, so that the barbarian would know that he can't make DC 15 arcana checks with 8 int and the wizard would know that he can't make DC 15 athletics checks with 8 str. At that point, you have basically set up a "non-proficiency penalty" like earlier editions had. I can't say I would agree with it, but at least it is transparent and fairly applied.

hawklost

2015-02-17, 06:01 PM

Indeed. There is no rule that requires the DM to treat his players fairly and with courtesy. He can impose an "I hate barbarians" penalty. Its a pretty nasty thing to do, but it is legal in the same sense that just saying "barbarians cannot roll arcana" is not. But it is also unrelated to how Int works on checks in 5e. That is strictly a table issue. I wonder if casting guidance on the barbarian would also further alter the arbitrary circumstance penalty.

Note that your second example has nothing to do with wizards vs fighters and everything to do with the fighter carrying a guy on his back. If in that same example, you said "the DC is 10, but Mr. Wizard, you have no experience climbing cliffs so you have a -5 no rock climbing penalty" it would be fair. ER. Fairer. It would be fair if you imposed the "wizard skill check penalty" in about the same number of circumstances in which you imposed the "Barbarian skill check penalty". It would still be a pretty nasty thing to do to players if you didn't make it clear at chargen that you were altering the skill system in this way.

If you wanted to do this, without being arbitrary, you would set out a list of skill checks that classes are "bad at" at chargen, so that the barbarian would know that he can't make DC 15 arcana checks with 8 int and the wizard would know that he can't make DC 15 athletics checks with 8 str. At that point, you have basically set up a "non-proficiency penalty" like earlier editions had. I can't say I would agree with it, but at least it is transparent and fairly applied.

But see, that is the whole point, no one is saying to arbitrarily forbid a barbarian from making an arcana check, but that they cannot succeed at one so therefore they shouldn't bother rolling. You agree that it is acceptable for a DM to impose higher DCs (or penalties as you want to demand them as) but you have a problem with a DM saying 'well, your Barbarian does not have any foreknowledge in the domains of Magic so he cannot make the check (because the DC is too high)'.

It would be no different than telling a Wizard(Enter any class here) that he cannot make a check to jump a 20 foot chasm because he only has a str 8 and the DC is too high for him to succeed at. But then allowing a Fighter (enter any other class here) who has 18 str and/or Proficiency in the class to attempt it with a DC.

Which logic is better?
Player: "Can I make the jump check?"
DM1: "No" (Cannot succeed no matter what with penalties involved)
-------------------
Player: "Can I make the jump check?"
DM2: "Sure, you can attempt it"
(Player rolls 20)
DM2: "Sorry, you just aren't strong enough to make that jump"

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 06:06 PM

But see, that is the whole point, no one is saying to arbitrarily forbid a barbarian from making an arcana check, but that they cannot succeed at one so therefore they shouldn't bother rolling. You agree that it is acceptable for a DM to impose higher DCs (or penalties as you want to demand them as) but you have a problem with a DM saying 'well, your Barbarian does not have any foreknowledge in the domains of Magic so he cannot make the check (because the DC is too high)'.

It would be no different than telling a Wizard(Enter any class here) that he cannot make a check to jump a 20 foot chasm because he only has a str 8 and the DC is too high for him to succeed at.

I do not agree that it is acceptable to provide a penalty to checks based on what class you are. It is unbalanced and opposite to the system.

I agree that the rules allow you to set circumstance modifiers. But if that modifier is "you are a barbarian" then you would need to 1. make it clear before hand, 2. Make similar modifiers for every class and 3. Its still a houserule.

If it is a DC 20 chasm to jump, and the wizard has an 8 str, he can't jump it. But he can't jump it because his modifier is -1 and he can't succeed in a DC 20 task, not because Robed Men Can't Jump. Its DC 20 for everyone. If he trained in jumping for a year, and got Athletics proficiency, he can then jump it. Not because "he now knows how to jump and the DC changed" but because he now adds proficiency bonus to his d20-1 so he has a chance to succeed.

hawklost

2015-02-17, 06:10 PM

I do not agree that it is acceptable to provide a penalty to checks based on what class you are. It is unbalanced and opposite to the system.

I agree that the rules allow you to set circumstance modifiers. But if that modifier is "you are a barbarian" then you would need to 1. make it clear before hand, 2. Make similar modifiers for every class and 3. Its still a houserule.

If it is a DC 20 chasm to jump, and the wizard has an 8 str, he can't jump it. But he can't jump it because his modifier is -1 and he can't succeed in a DC 20 task, not because Robed Men Can't Jump. Its DC 20 for everyone.

Alright, the rules are, you are not magically inclined, never bothered to learn anything about magic and don't really show any interest in magic other than it helps you when you say X word while hold Y object. Sorry, I am not making this about a barbarian, I am saying that some people don't care. You want to make a background or write up a story about how your character has spent time learning magical properties of items? Then I reduce the penalty or remove it.

And if it is a DC 20 chasm for a 8 str person Why would it be for a 18 str person? The person with 8 str can only jump without a check 8 ft, the person with an 18 str can jump 18 ft without a check, why would it be DC 20 to make it across for the person who only really needs 2 extra feet vs the person who needs 12 extra feet?

EDIT:
Also, a DM has full right to say that someone who is low on intelligence, no matter how much they study has a more negative modifier for understanding intrinsic properties of the universe than just a -1.

Some DMs just want to be able to say "Well, your character concept makes you an idiot so I am sorry but you cannot understand how that timey whimey stuff works no matter how much you think about it. It just works for you and for your character, that is enough'

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 06:26 PM

Alright, the rules are, you are not magically inclined, never bothered to learn anything about magic and don't really show any interest in magic other than it helps you when you say X word while hold Y object. Sorry, I am not making this about a barbarian, I am saying that some people don't care. You want to make a background or write up a story about how your character has spent time learning magical properties of items? Then I reduce the penalty or remove it.

So, does a wizard need to make up a backstory describing his childhood in the country to make a swim check or an opposed grapple? Does he need to have a backstory as a sneak to try to be sneaky or to pick a pocket? It seems to me that this rule only screws up people on a handful of knowledge checks. If applied to all classes equally, with foreknowledge, its fair. If you just say "OK, if you don't have a proficiency, its -3 on a check", its fair. Otherwise, you are basically picking a handful of skills, deciding on your own that THESE are the skills that get penalties, and deciding on your own which classes get penalties on them. Thats unbalanced, and its mean. Springing rules on players in play is shady, and thats a big change to how skills work. Its basically adding a class feature to "smart" classes like wizard and bard, without adding anything to other classes. If you want to put in a rule that says that no one can make DCs above 10 in skills they haven't trained, except that bards and wizards and knowledge clerics ignore it at level 3, and other classes get some other small skill boost at 3 that is about equal, thats fair also. Still a houserule, but not a terrible one.

And if it is a DC 20 chasm for a 8 str person Why would it be for a 18 str person? The person with 8 str can only jump without a check 8 ft, the person with an 18 str can jump 18 ft without a check, why would it be DC 20 to make it across for the person who only really needs 2 extra feet vs the person who needs 12 extra feet?

In that case, there is a clear rule on how jumping works. But if he said "you are landing in difficult terrain, its a DC 10 (Acrobatics) to remain standing (per the rules) but bob can't make it because he has 8 dex, or because he is a cleric and clerics never focus on jumping, or he never told me how he played basketball in his back story", those would be arbitrary houserules unrelated to jump checks.

EDIT:
Also, a DM has full right to say that someone who is low on intelligence, no matter how much they study has a more negative modifier for understanding intrinsic properties of the universe than just a -1.

Some DMs just want to be able to say "Well, your character concept makes you an idiot so I am sorry but you cannot understand how that timey whimey stuff works no matter how much you think about it. It just works for you and for your character, that is enough'

Yes, he can rule that rangers are full casters and ogres are a PC race and everything magical is vulnerable to the color yellow. Thats a different thing from saying that he should, or that it is how 5e works.

hawklost

2015-02-17, 06:38 PM

So, does a wizard need to make up a backstory describing his childhood in the country to make a swim check or an opposed grapple? Does he need to have a backstory as a sneak to try to be sneaky or to pick a pocket? It seems to me that this rule only screws up people on a handful of knowledge checks. If applied to all classes equally, with foreknowledge, its fair. If you just say "OK, if you don't have a proficiency, its -3 on a check", its fair. Otherwise, you are basically picking a handful of skills, deciding on your own that THESE are the skills that get penalties, and deciding on your own which classes get penalties on them. Thats unbalanced, and its mean. Springing rules on players in play is shady, and thats a big change to how skills work. Its basically adding a class feature to "smart" classes like wizard and bard, without adding anything to other classes. If you want to put in a rule that says that no one can make DCs above 10 in skills they haven't trained, except that bards and wizards and knowledge clerics ignore it at level 3, and other classes get some other small skill boost at 3 that is about equal, thats fair also. Still a houserule, but not a terrible one.

In that case, there is a clear rule on how jumping works. But if he said "you are landing in difficult terrain, its a DC 10 (Acrobatics) to remain standing (per the rules) but bob can't make it because he has 8 dex, or because he is a cleric and clerics never focus on jumping", those would be arbitrary houserules unrelated to jump checks.

Yes, he can rule that rangers are full casters and ogres are a PC race and everything magical is vulnerable to the color yellow. Thats a different thing from saying that he should, or that it is how 5e works.

Can you honestly name a single other type of check that works the same as Knowledge checks?

Lets see
Knowledge Checks, 1 person succeeds, everyone can have that knowledge
Str Check? Nope, one succeeds does not help that low str char
Dex checks? Nope, same as Str
Perception checks? Nope, ambush still hurts only those who fail
Cha checks? Well, 3 people failed to make an impression but 1 succeeded, nope the person doesn't really like the group so he isn't helping them out

See, only the Knowledge checks really have a 1 succeed we all succeed. So it makes sense that they do not work by having an infinite number of people with -1 to attempt to make a check and always succeed as a group. Since no other check works that way.

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 06:54 PM

Can you honestly name a single other type of check that works the same as Knowledge checks?

Lets see
Knowledge Checks, 1 person succeeds, everyone can have that knowledge
Str Check? Nope, one succeeds does not help that low str char
Dex checks? Nope, same as Str
Perception checks? Nope, ambush still hurts only those who fail
Cha checks? Well, 3 people failed to make an impression but 1 succeeded, nope the person doesn't really like the group so he isn't helping them out

See, only the Knowledge checks really have a 1 succeed we all succeed. So it makes sense that they do not work by having an infinite number of people with -1 to attempt to make a check and always succeed as a group. Since no other check works that way.

Well, actually, there are lots of checks that succeed or fail as a group. 5e has group checks, so if the fighter, the ranger, and the rogue all climb a cliff, they can lug up the cleric and the wizard and all are good. Group checks mean that the 8 str wizard just doesn't need to worry about cliffs and the 8 wis noble fighter can tank survival checks with no fear, unless they are alone, in which case they really extra super want the chance to roll.

Actually, if you redefine who can make checks, it's pretty opposite to how group checks work. The game never said "the wizard can't make survival checks because he lived in the city". It encourages him to make the check, because if he rolls well and succeeds, it makes it more likely that the group as a whole will succeed. Sure, you could say "only the ranger, druid, and barbarian can make survival checks", but thats rather less fun, and not how the rules work.

But lets say that somehow, knowledge checks are different than every other check in the game. It isn't like my group doesn't want to have someone good at knowledges. We're not just going to have 4 rolls of 1d20-1 and hope that someone gets lucky on a DC 15, let alone a DC 20. It doesn't hurt the wizard player to let the muggle roll and hope for that 20. After all, the wizard could roll a 1. It does hurt the muggle to assign him skills that he can't roll. It's boring (he can't participate by rolling. most people like rolling). It's unfair (it is a benefit to "smart" classes like Wizard and Bard, which already tended to be some of the strongest classes in the game). It is a "gotcha" (it doesn't suggest this in the rules).

Kurald Galain

2015-02-17, 07:03 PM

Gritmonger

2015-02-17, 07:53 PM

That works. A straightforward solution is to simply double all proficiency bonuses (to skills only, not to attacks).
...so everybody has expertise in everything? I guess I'm not understanding - where does that leave expertise?

hawklost

2015-02-17, 07:58 PM

Well, actually, there are lots of checks that succeed or fail as a group. 5e has group checks, so if the fighter, the ranger, and the rogue all climb a cliff, they can lug up the cleric and the wizard and all are good. Group checks mean that the 8 str wizard just doesn't need to worry about cliffs and the 8 wis noble fighter can tank survival checks with no fear, unless they are alone, in which case they really extra super want the chance to roll.

Actually, if you redefine who can make checks, it's pretty opposite to how group checks work. The game never said "the wizard can't make survival checks because he lived in the city". It encourages him to make the check, because if he rolls well and succeeds, it makes it more likely that the group as a whole will succeed. Sure, you could say "only the ranger, druid, and barbarian can make survival checks", but thats rather less fun, and not how the rules work.

But lets say that somehow, knowledge checks are different than every other check in the game. It isn't like my group doesn't want to have someone good at knowledges. We're not just going to have 4 rolls of 1d20-1 and hope that someone gets lucky on a DC 15, let alone a DC 20. It doesn't hurt the wizard player to let the muggle roll and hope for that 20. After all, the wizard could roll a 1. It does hurt the muggle to assign him skills that he can't roll. It's boring (he can't participate by rolling. most people like rolling). It's unfair (it is a benefit to "smart" classes like Wizard and Bard, which already tended to be some of the strongest classes in the game). It is a "gotcha" (it doesn't suggest this in the rules).

Funny, I could have sworn group checks indicate that if more than 50% of the group succeeds they all succeed, while with Knowledge checks, if one person succeeds they can provide the whole group with the information. That would be like making a Group check that if a single person succeeds at climbing that everyone succeeds because one person could climb.

Funny thing is, Group checks are completely different than what we have been discussing. But I guess when you have to move the goalpost to make your point, you just move the argument to something different.

Also, I have repeatedly said and you ignore that knowledge checks (and even investigation) DO work differently in the game. They are the only check that a single person has to succeed in for the whole group to fully benefit from all the time.

Lets look at a group of 5 with Group checks.

Climbing Group 3 fail, 2 succeed. Group Check FAILS
Swim Group 3 fail, 2 succeed. Group Check FAILS
Stealth Group 3 fail, 2 succeed. Group Check FAILS
Knowledge Group Check 3 fail, 2 succeed. Group Check FAILS (makes very little sense though, since someone in the group knew the answer)

Now, lets look at the same check individually and we will notice something odd about a single check

Climb check 3 fail, 2 succeed. 2 people make it up
Swim check 3 fail, 2 succeed. 2 people swim across
Stealth check 3 fail, 2 succeed. 2 people are hidden
Knowledge check 3 fail, 2 succeed. 2 people know the answer and say it. All the group effectively has now 'succeeded' at a knowledge check without requiring any more checks

One of these things is not like the other and that is exactly how dnd works.

But then I guess in some dnd worlds the DM can ignore RAW and decide that even if the cleric in the group knows the answer that he doesn't because the wizard and rogue have no idea.

EDIT:
Perception checks sometimes work differently if the party is not immediately attacked, but most of the time DMs use a perception check for individuals and then have them be attacked, so the failures get caught by surprise while those who succeed are not.

Shining Wrath

2015-02-17, 08:06 PM

Well, assuming that a task is low enough difficulty that joe average can succeed (DC 20 or below) you could do that. Except for disable traps. Thieves tools are one of the few things that do require proficiency.

But aside from the difficulties of dragging around 50 people wherever you go, that actually makes a lot of sense. If I asked some question from (say) French revolutionary history to 50 people, chances are pretty good that one of them would know it if it was widely known. Gather info? Totally! They fan out through the town, go to different bars, talk to different people, and one of them gets lucky and finds someone who saw the crime. Intimidate? You got 50 guys with you! Thats pretty scary. I don't see it becoming a widely used tactic (you would need 50 people willing to wander through the dungeon, you would have to keep them safe, etc). But really, 50 commoners (with slings) would pretty much crush most low level adventuring parties anyway, at most things. Bounded accuracy in action. If you plan to bring them along, you will be bringing them along for their butt kicking, not their skillmonkeyness.

And in any event, even if you wanted to (house)rule that NPCs can't make checks over a certain DC, 5e does not suggest that NPCs need to operate under the exact same rules as PCs. Trying to avoid peasant mob is not a good justification for not allowing PLAYERS to roll for their characters to see if they have a chance to know or do something.

And yes, the rules say that the DM can decide whether it makes sense to help another person with their roll. They say nothing about determining that people cannot make checks untrained (in fact, they go in the other direction), other than by the simple expedient of making the DC high enough that untrained people cannot succeed. You want to prevent peasant mob and barbarians from rolling? DC 22. Done. Hope your wizard gets a good roll.

PHB 174, DC 20 is "hard". For comparison, the maximum save DC for a spellcaster (20 in stat, proficiency 6) is 19. In other words, your horde of commoners is roughly as proficient at any skill check as a 17th level wizard with Intelligence of 20 is at his chosen profession. In a contest of strength, a result of 20 is what you'd expect from rolling a '11' with a strength modifier of +9 - Storm Giant. Your horde of commoners is collectively as smart as a Storm Giant is strong.

If you assume one person in 256 has an Int of 18 (roll 3d6) and a proficiency of 2, you can get an answer to a DC 25 question by asking (on the average) 2560 randomly chosen strangers.

If that's how you roll (pun intended), enjoy your game. I find it nonsensical. It means there ought to be no such thing as sages, no such things as bard colleges, no quests to discover ancient secrets; even hard questions can be answered by asking people on the street.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-17, 08:14 PM

...so everybody has expertise in everything? I guess I'm not understanding - where does that leave expertise?

Triple the bonus (instead of double).

If you see it as a problem that the dumb barbarian will commonly succeed at (e.g.) arcana checks when the wizard fails, then the obvious solution is to increase the difference between their modifiers. You could do this by giving untrained characters a penalty, but it strikes me as more elegant to double the skill bonus.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-17, 08:16 PM

If you assume one person in 256 has an Int of 18 (roll 3d6) and a proficiency of 2, you can get an answer to a DC 25 question by asking (on the average) 2560 randomly chosen strangers.

Not exactly. You'll get 2560 different answers, and no doubt one of those happens to be the correct one...

...but how exactly are you going to find out which?

Gnaeus

2015-02-17, 08:29 PM

Funny, I could have sworn group checks indicate that if more than 50% of the group succeeds they all succeed, while with Knowledge checks, if one person succeeds they can provide the whole group with the information. That would be like making a Group check that if a single person succeeds at climbing that everyone succeeds because one person could climb.

Funny thing is, Group checks are completely different than what we have been discussing. But I guess when you have to move the goalpost to make your point, you just move the argument to something different.

Also, I have repeatedly said and you ignore that knowledge checks (and even investigation) DO work differently in the game. They are the only check that a single person has to succeed in for the whole group to fully benefit from all the time.

Oh, is this cross examination debate, where if a point is overlooked on your opponents turn, it is somehow conceded? Fine. I concede that knowledge checks are "different", and you concede that your rule is not balanced, fun, or predictable through the rules. I win.

But really. It does not matter at all. So they're different. I don't really agree with you, but fine, they're different. Only needing one party member to succeed doesn't mean that the party won't still want people with skills. It doesn't mean that it is any more fair to the party members you are depriving of checks.

As far as "different" goes, as a DM, I usually WANT people to succeed in knowledge checks. I don't usually care if they make their perception, and often I am actually delighted if the enemy gets a surprise round. But someone makes a knowledge check to figure out what is going on? Super. So the wizard rolls badly and the barbarian gets an unexpected and unusual flash of insight, so the whole party succeeds because he rolled really well. Why is this supposed to bother me again?

If that's how you roll (pun intended), enjoy your game. I find it nonsensical. It means there ought to be no such thing as sages, no such things as bard colleges, no quests to discover ancient secrets; even hard questions can be answered by asking people on the street.

And if the DC capped at "hard" that might be somewhat valid. "hard" basically means that it is unlikely that joe schmuck might know, but he might. If it is nearly impossible that a peasant might know, hey, there is a difficulty for "nearly impossible". And it pretty much ensures that a mob of peasants will not be able to answer. "Hard" is more like that thing that very few people know, but that one guy might know because he was there when it was on jeopardy (or when a bard sang a story about it in a tavern. whatever). Your quest to the ancient sages is for stuff that you can't find in your local library. Thats a higher DC.

But again, a mob of 50 peasants is better than most teams of adventurers at lots of things, including fighting. Thanks bounded accuracy. Unless the peasant army becomes a regular thing in your group, it is not a problem. 5e is pretty gamist (as opposed to simulationist) so it isn't really very surprising that you get weird results when you throw out abnormal scenarios. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't make the rule more fair to the muggles. It doesn't make it predictable from the rules. And once again, if a peasant army becomes a real issue, a houserule involving mob NPC skill checks is still a better way to address it than a houserule preventing half your party's PCs from using skills untrained.

Naanomi

2015-02-17, 08:33 PM

Symphony

2015-02-17, 10:33 PM

For the help action, if a person can't succeed on a 20 I don't let them help. I give a -5 to the 'can they possibly help' check if they would be at a disadvantage. Still for normal range DC checks someone can generally help; only with significant penalties is someone unable to offer any help at all. *However* if someone rolls a modified 1 or less on the help action they screw up the process and force disadvantage.

Total house rule territory, but a perspective from an active table on the matter.

Actually, thank you for mentioning disadvantage. Advantage/Disadvantage is the proper way, IMO, to deal with those really unlikely/likely to know situations.

For example, an 8 int Barbarian who has no reason to know anything about magic attempting to make a DC 15 check with disadvantage has a 6.25% chance of succeeding. On the other hand, an 18 int 5th level Wizard who went to magic school and is proficient in Arcana making that same DC 15 check with advantage has an 87.75% chance of succeeding.

Those seem like reasonable values to me.

But even if the Barbarian is familiar with a particular branch of shamanistic magic from his back story, if the DC is 20, he's never going to make that check even with advantage, while that same Wizard still has a 16% chance of making the check even with disadvantage from being completely unfamiliar with it.

rollingForInit

2015-02-18, 02:02 AM

But that has no basis whatsoever. All of the other stats are perfectly linear, parity would dictate that Intelligence is treated in the same way and in absence of evidence we should be giving the stats equal weight.
Besides, Eagles have an Int of 8 too and it isn't like they are rocket scientists compared to an Ape, so that really blows the non-linearity theory out of the water. It also highlights how comparatively stupid being 3.5 points below the average really is - your Int 8 character is as smart as a bird.

I wouldn't say that most stats are perfectly linear. Is a Dex 1 creatue 1/10 as dexterous as a dex 10? Is a dex 20 twice as good as a dex 10? A dex 20 character has a 25% greater chance of beating a dex check DC of an arbitrary value than a dex 10 character. Twice as good? I wouldn't say that.

I will agree that the system isn't perfect (though I wouldn't say it's stupid because it'd be pretty difficult to create a 100% realistic system that's abstract and easy and covers all abilities a human can have). An Int 8 human isn't a half-ape and doesn't have the mental capacity of an eagle, obviously. So I guess they aren't even comparable. Int 8 for an Eagle isn't the same as Int 8 for for a human.

And indeed, if the ruling is "wizards make an int check" maybe the barbarian can't roll. If it is an int check on the history of barbarian tribes, maybe barbarians can roll and wizards can't.

But in the rules, nowhere is it remotely suggested that people with low stats can't make skill checks. They specifically can, that's why there is a penalty. Yes, the DM can rule however they want to. But ruling that the 8 int barbarian can't make knowledge checks is a pretty unfair house rule. Does the 8 str wizard auto fail climbing checks too?

I agree with that. I don't think I'd rule that a low-ability character cannot even attempt it. I'd only make that call based on background and such.

Chronos

2015-02-18, 11:24 AM

Even if that 8 Int barbarian has never been to wizard college, though, he's probably chopped up plenty of spellcasters, and been on the wrong end of their spells a time or three. He's had opportunities to learn about how spells work. Sure, he won't be able to learn as much from those opportunities as his wizard teammate will, but that's represented by his Int penalty and lack of proficiency. Because of those things, his chance of knowing something relevant is low, but he does still have a chance.

Anderlith

2015-02-18, 05:11 PM

So far there has been a lot of discussion over roleplaying opportunities & the relevancy of skill checks...

But honestly that is all optional. The book even says so. So shelve that conversation as it only derails further discussion towards particularly unique play styles & personal opinions.

The fact of the matter is that mechanically there is no reason to use Int unless you are a Wizard.

What would you recommend to help make it more relevant?

I like the idea of extra languages/proficiencies per modifier bonus.

Gnaeus

2015-02-18, 08:14 PM

I don't like adding proficiencies, for 2 reasons.

1. Like in 3.5, it really supercharges the wizard. As the 1 class that really heavily wants int, it also makes him a superior skillmonkey.

2. While it may work in homebrew, it isn't likely as a major shift in design, unless they print 5.5.

There should be more saves in int. As it is, I mostly just hope that my low int characters never meet an intellect devourer. But this is not enough. It is cheaper to drop a feat on your int saves than it is to actually take decent int.

Maybe some kind of buy a clue feature, where once (or x times) per session (level? other time frame?) you could make a high DC int check to ask the DM for a bit of insight? Either on something like a puzzle or on a tactical plan? If you succeed, the DM gives some advice or points out something you overlooked? The DM could roll it in secret if you are about to do something dumb?

mephnick

2015-02-18, 10:03 PM

pwykersotz

2015-02-18, 10:16 PM

Got behind on this thread a bit...

You could always add or subtract money to the base 5gp per day crafting limit based on Int mod. If you want to be generous, change the gp value by 1gp per point of Int mod. If you want to be a little more restrained, make it one or two silver per Int mod instead. Since a lot of people have Int represent book learning rather than IQ, this represents the person's ability to apply that knowledge to tasks that generally require a lot of applied knowledge.

Depending on your interpretation, this could work for magic crafting too, or else be held exempt from that because magic crafting is "different".

I know a few players in my games who would keep their Int raised top notch for this perk alone.

ad_hoc

2015-02-18, 11:00 PM

The simplest way to make Int more valuable is to make more saving throws rely on it. It's a shame that so few do.

As far as the narrative problems people have with knowledge checks, it is your chance to make up more background for the character.

If the character makes their roll then there was something previously unsaid in their background that allows them to know that.

The check is about nobility? Oh it turns out the barbarian who rolled the 20 actually did have an encounter with a noble in their youth and they learned it through that.

Think of it more like improv. Roll with the flow of the dice. No need to retcon the character background, just add to it.

Solusek

2015-02-19, 12:23 AM

I think the best way to handle this knowledge check silliness is something that I doubt any GM would want to do. It would be a lot of extra work for them and require quick thinking on their part. But it would be awesome:

Let all the players get a roll for that Knowledge Arcana check if they want it. Let the barbarian with his 8 int and no proficiency get a check. Let the Bard roll who has proficiency but no int modifier. Let the Wizard roll with his 18 int.

But the twist is, they don't actually get to roll themselves. You (the GM) roll for them behind your screen and figure out what their skill check adds up to, but don't tell the players what their totals were. Then tell each character what they "know" about the topic. Characters who got low results may get lots of misinformation. Characters who just missed the check will get less severe misinformation, or maybe just a "you have no idea" result. Characters who pass the check will get the real info. But the players won't know who rolled what (just as their in game characters wouldn't know such meta info). The players will have to decide what information to trust based on who is the best skilled in that area, rather than who rolled the highest on the D20.

This makes the most sense to me, and it doesn't require changing any rules.

Goodberry

2015-02-19, 01:02 AM

Our DM sometimes provides misinformation to characters with very low intelligence.

Example: John the thief has 4 Int. While scouting ahead of the group, he comes upon a goblin encampment. John asks the DM how many goblins he sees. DM tells him he counts 40 goblins. In fact there are 100, but John is so stupid he can't count that high.

Ninjadeadbeard

2015-02-19, 01:47 AM

Psionics, when they make it.

Never gonna happen. They cannibalized the best parts of Psionics to make some of the base archetypes (Eldritch Knight = Soulknife, Sorcerer = Wilder points, Elemental Monk = psionic points, etc). It's all flavor now. I...I'm sorry. :smallfrown:

rollingForInit

2015-02-19, 05:10 AM

Yeah, there are two important things to remember here if you decide to make Int more important.

It automatically makes the wizard more powerful, simply because he will have Int already.

It also makes everyone else in the game less powerful. Now they either 1) lose out on features another class is gaining automatically (wizard), or 2) they're now needing to sacrifice important stat points to bump Int because you hastily made Int more important.

I say leave it. It already makes sense for 99% of adventurers to have low or average intelligence anyway.

I don't think that reasoning works, unless we assume that Int is designed solely to be used by Wizards. As things are now, rogues get a whole lot for free with Dexterity, how is that not the same thing? They get a high attack modifier, they get higher AC, they get better initiative, they also get proficiency with one of the most common saving throws for avoiding damage, which they can even enhance to skip out on damage altogether.

And I prefer to think that they didn't design Int just for the Wizard, because that'd just be bad design, imo.

I do agree that additional skill proficiencies for high Int would be a bad thing, though, because having high Intelligence wouldn't necessarily make them more skilled in a broader sense, and it would really step on the toes of Bards and Rogues. I really liked the additional languages you gained, however. No class has any focus on languages, and they aren't a critical mechanic in the game. But it did, at least to me, make it more appealing to take at least 12 in Int. And it makes perfect sense that someone who's good at memorising things would have an easier time learning languages, and it makes sense as well that a Wizard who's spent his or her life studying things would've learnt a few extra languages.

An idea that our group toyed with was to introduce a system of skill specialisation to make the skills a bit more varied. Basically, for ever modifier on an ability score, the character would gain a specialisation in a skill related to that ability score. A specialisation would give advantage on skill checks with a subset of a skill. For instance, a Wizard with high Inta character might get a specialisation in Arcana (Fire Magic), which would give them advantage on arcana checks that deal with fire magic. Maybe a rogue takes Acrobatics (slippery surfaces) to get advantage on any checks to keep balance when running on slippery surfaces. Of course, it would heavily depend on the players and DM figuring out balanced subsets of the skills, so I guess it wouldn't work with players who're too power hungry. We never got around to actually trying it out, but we're still considering it. It wouldn't necessarily improve Intelligence as such, but it'd make the ability scores more interesting in general, as well as the skill system.

Gwendol

2015-02-19, 05:18 AM

Rangers gain the language of their favored enemy. Tying languages known to INT would dilute an already maligned class feature further.

Giant2005

2015-02-19, 06:37 AM

What do you think of erasing Int from the game entirely?
Combine Int and Wis into one attribute called "Mind" or something like that and have that attribute cover everything that both Int and Wis do now. It might sound like this attribute might be OP compared to the others by getting the benefits of two but Int doesn't really bring anything to the table anyway.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-19, 06:47 AM

1. Like in 3.5, it really supercharges the wizard. As the 1 class that really heavily wants int, it also makes him a superior skillmonkey.
That's easy to fix: just give the wizard less skills (plus his int) and skill-based classes more skills (plus their int). You know, like how 3E does :smallbiggrin:

2. While it may work in homebrew, it isn't likely as a major shift in design, unless they print 5.5.
Giving characters slightly more of what they already have is not a "major shift" by any stretch of the word.

Maybe some kind of buy a clue feature, where once (or x times) per session (level? other time frame?) you could make a high DC int check to ask the DM for a bit of insight?
That sounds reasonable; it is not uncommon to be in a situation where I as a player don't know how to proceed, but my character probably would (e.g. because my character has skills that I as a player don't have).

S_Dalsgaard

2015-02-19, 07:48 AM

Actually I find it a bit odd, that they haven't tied training to intelligence more, as in someone with high intelligence can learn new languages and proficiency in tools quicker (and cheaper) than someone with low intelligence.

It wouldn't be much of a benefit, but it would mean, that a high intelligence PC might learn a new language in two months instead of the standard 250 days. I don't know of many, who are willing to take an adventuring break for 250 days to learn Orcish, but if you could do it in two months, it might be more attractive.

Anderlith

2015-02-20, 02:55 PM

While I agree it makes no sense to give them Skill Proficiencies, I do not see the harm in giving them Tool,Gaming Set, & Language Proficiencies.

Synovia

2015-02-20, 03:14 PM

Knowledge Group Check 3 fail, 2 succeed. Group Check FAILS (makes very little sense though, since someone in the group knew the answer)

It makes perfect sense.

There's a phenomenon called the Dunning-Kreuger effect - basically it says that the less a person knows about something, the more they overestimate their knowledge/ability/etc. People with less knowledge are more confident about their knowledge.

These sort of group checks bring in the ability of the system to kind of simulate one character knowing what something is, and another character thinking they know what it is, and overruling/talking over the first character - it removes the "Oh, the wizard rolled an 18, so he's probably right"

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-20, 04:51 PM

High ranking offers are rarely those also the most skilled in the field

I'd be careful about drawing far reaching conclusions without a solid agreement of the military system we're going to put under consideration. i.e. Are we talking a merit-based system, or are we talking one that functions primarily off of purchased commissions? Do the soldiers follow because they're conscripts, because they're paid, or because they 'want' to?

etc...

Officers could be: those who got lucky in battle; those who best motivate their troops; those who paid the highest fee for the rank; those who suck up the most; those who are most feared; those who just happen to have been born to the right people and get the training/equipment required; etc...

None of which tells us how skilled they are at their jobs or related ability. That being said, if we're talking a medieval society, gaining rank is probably a function of two things: Personal skill and ancestral ability. Either the character is personally great at something that gets them moved up or their families were great at something that got them moved up and they inherited that responsibility in some form.

Think: Jon Snow vs Joffrey Baratheon. Jon is skilled and charismatic and gets promoted to positions of power because of that; Joffrey almost exclusively gets power because of his family name, he's otherwise hotheaded and incompetent.

I would argue for anything other than a frontline warrior who needs to carry heavy armor, athletics isn't anywhere close to as important as knowledge skills or investigate.

Dex is probably a more important skill than Int, but only because of saves, AC and initiative - I would argue that, unless you want to go with a stealth-focused party, the int skills are probably a bit more important than the dex skills.

One of my points earlier was that I think people use Perception often when Investigation is a more appropriate skill.

Athletics are important if you want to climb the castle walls or leap that gap when being pursued by hungry hobgoblins or swim that river to evade a worg pack. It also doesn't actually have anything to do with wearing heavy armor per se, other than that they both benefit from a higher strength score.

I don't think it's at all necessary to have a high intelligence to reflect skill, especially combat skills. All kinds of combat skills are about repetition and reflexes. It's about pre-defining a response and being able to enact that response at the first sign of the relevant triggers. Intelligence might be useful in inventing new kinds of responses (or perhaps even in recognizing that an opposing army is getting into position to attempt a particular military tactic), but for actual physical combat it's practically useless.

Besides, Eagles have an Int of 8 too and it isn't like they are rocket scientists compared to an Ape,

Correction, Giant Eagles have an Int of 8. That's Giant Eagles like the ones in the LotR, they're basically as smart as your average human.

No, but there are examples of characters with no proficiency not being able to make checks.

If the barbarian had Prof in History or Arcana then yea, even with his int 8 he could attempt to remember something he read. Without the Prof though some things are impossible to know no matter how smart you are (even int 20 characters know nothing on Arcana if they never bothered studying it.)

That's not a rule that I can find. What page are you reading this on? The only thing I can find says you just make the check without your proficiency bonus. I think artificially adding penalties on top of the already existing disparity (one person has a higher ability score than the other) is not warranted.

hawklost

2015-02-20, 04:51 PM

It makes perfect sense.

There's a phenomenon called the Dunning-Kreuger effect - basically it says that the less a person knows about something, the more they overestimate their knowledge/ability/etc. People with less knowledge are more confident about their knowledge.

These sort of group checks bring in the ability of the system to kind of simulate one character knowing what something is, and another character thinking they know what it is, and overruling/talking over the first character - it removes the "Oh, the wizard rolled an 18, so he's probably right"

Yes, but it fails in the sense that the Wizard gets the knowledge check correct and says it is this.

The Fighter fails and says it is that.

The Barbarian fails and says it is a third thing.

Who do you believe? If the Wizard is a person who studied the effect (say knowledge History) while the Barbarian and Fighter have never studied history no one will believe the Fighter or Barbarian.

Same if the reverse is true, if B and F succeed while the 'expert' gives wrong information, then people would still believe the expert over the people who are right.

It has to do with the effect of when people claimed to have studied something, others are more inclined to believe the expert of someone who is just off the street.

Ask a history major about the roman empire and then ask 2 people who say they only studied it partially. Most people will believe the History Major over the random 2 people who don't really know much, especially if they seem to be stupid and the HM seems smart. I am not saying the random 2 people aren't correct, just you are more inclined to believe people who have spent more time studying something.

pwykersotz

2015-02-20, 05:20 PM

Yes, but it fails in the sense that the Wizard gets the knowledge check correct and says it is this.

The Fighter fails and says it is that.

The Barbarian fails and says it is a third thing.

Who do you believe? If the Wizard is a person who studied the effect (say knowledge History) while the Barbarian and Fighter have never studied history no one will believe the Fighter or Barbarian.

Same if the reverse is true, if B and F succeed while the 'expert' gives wrong information, then people would still believe the expert over the people who are right.

It has to do with the effect of when people claimed to have studied something, others are more inclined to believe the expert of someone who is just off the street.

Ask a history major about the roman empire and then ask 2 people who say they only studied it partially. Most people will believe the History Major over the random 2 people who don't really know much, especially if they seem to be stupid and the HM seems smart. I am not saying the random 2 people aren't correct, just you are more inclined to believe people who have spent more time studying something.

This implies that all Arcana, History, Nature, etc checks are based in memorized facts and are immediately recollectable. If such a thing falls under the purview of the Wizard, the DM could easily allow only them to roll. Some things are obscure and mysterious requiring discussion and pondering.

An example. I am an amature programmer. I have a few friends who are professionals. Sometimes they discuss ideas with me and I'm able to help them. Not because I'm better than them, but because I can conceptualize what they're talking about and give them ideas of general function. Similarly, I am capable of offering no useful advice and they still might not be able to work through a difficulty.

Solusek

2015-02-20, 05:21 PM

Yes, but it fails in the sense that the Wizard gets the knowledge check correct and says it is this.

The Fighter fails and says it is that.

The Barbarian fails and says it is a third thing.

Who do you believe? If the Wizard is a person who studied the effect (say knowledge History) while the Barbarian and Fighter have never studied history no one will believe the Fighter or Barbarian.

Same if the reverse is true, if B and F succeed while the 'expert' gives wrong information, then people would still believe the expert over the people who are right.

It has to do with the effect of when people claimed to have studied something, others are more inclined to believe the expert of someone who is just off the street.

Ask a history major about the roman empire and then ask 2 people who say they only studied it partially. Most people will believe the History Major over the random 2 people who don't really know much, especially if they seem to be stupid and the HM seems smart. I am not saying the random 2 people aren't correct, just you are more inclined to believe people who have spent more time studying something.

Which is exactly the table situation that would come up if a GM just made the knowledge rolls in secret.

The problem comes when players roll the dice and you can see the Wizard rolled a 1, and the Barbarian rolled a 19. Now the players will trust that barbarians knowledge over the wizards because of their meta information of what the die rolls were. Unfortunately this is how every D&D game I've played in runs with knowledge checks. Whoever rolled best is always the one that the DM checks to see what information he can give the party about a topic. The issue wasn't a big problem in 3.x because of how high skill bonuses scaled - a trained person would always get higher totals than an untrained person once you get to mid levels. With bounded accuracy it is a problem, though.

Short of having the DM roll dice in secret (which would be annoying and waste more table time as the DM has to come up with fake information constantly), I think the best way to handle this problem is only allowing PCs who are trained in a Kn skill to make a roll - the party would be trusting the trained characters knowledge over the untrained one, even if it's possible that the untrained person might roll higher on the dice. Knowing what people rolled on the d20 is out-of-game meta information that shouldn't be taken into account in this circumstance.

Chronos

2015-02-20, 08:28 PM

There's also the possibility, though, that multiple party members might come up with information that's complementary, rather than contradictory. Say you're rolling for information about vampires, and the wizard has heard that they can turn into a cloud of gas to retreat to their coffin, and the rogue has heard that they're vulnerable to holy water and symbols. Which one do you believe? Well, the wizard has a better chance of knowing what he's talking about, so maybe you prepare some wind spells to try to mess with the vampire once he gasses... but maybe the rogue is on to something, too, so you stop by the market and get holy symbols for everyone, just in case.

Gnaeus

2015-02-21, 09:17 AM

Which is exactly the table situation that would come up if a GM just made the knowledge rolls in secret.

The problem comes when players roll the dice and you can see the Wizard rolled a 1, and the Barbarian rolled a 19. Now the players will trust that barbarians knowledge over the wizards because of their meta information of what the die rolls were. Unfortunately this is how every D&D game I've played in runs with knowledge checks. Whoever rolled best is always the one that the DM checks to see what information he can give the party about a topic. The issue wasn't a big problem in 3.x because of how high skill bonuses scaled - a trained person would always get higher totals than an untrained person once you get to mid levels. With bounded accuracy it is a problem, though.

Short of having the DM roll dice in secret (which would be annoying and waste more table time as the DM has to come up with fake information constantly), I think the best way to handle this problem is only allowing PCs who are trained in a Kn skill to make a roll - the party would be trusting the trained characters knowledge over the untrained one, even if it's possible that the untrained person might roll higher on the dice. Knowing what people rolled on the d20 is out-of-game meta information that shouldn't be taken into account in this circumstance.

Well, first, it isn't like there are fumbles in 5e. If the wizard rolls 1 and says "I don't have any idea" and the barbarian rolls 20 and says "I think its an X", I'm gonna believe the barbarian.

Second, there are plenty of other scenarios in which this line of argument makes no sense. The party is separated, or the wizard is knocked out, or the bad guy cast a spell and the barbarian is trying to figure out if the wizard is charmed. In my party, we have no wizard. Our history expert is our cleric, who has an 8 int. We're not going to automatically believe him because he has a proficiency. He's still got the same +1 mod as our ranger. But telling the ranger he cant roll is (you guessed it) unfair, not fun for the ranger, and not based in the 5e rules.

Third, IF you like to deliver false information to PCs who fail knowledge checks, and your concern is metagaming, wouldn't you want to roll those checks privately anyway? If your worry is that the players are going to believe the barbarian over the wizard, but they see the barbarian's 20 and the wizard's 1, wouldn't the problem be just as bad if they ONLY see the wizard's 1 and then don't believe his advice? And if the wizard says cold iron and the barbarian says silver, and the cold iron doesn't work, is it unlikely that the barbarian will ask to try silver weapons next?

Finally, bear in mind that your position if far off on one side of what we have even been arguing. Hawklost's position, (correct me if I am misstating it) is that characters without a proficiency need to have the appropriate background to make a check. So the wizard can roll arcana, even if he lacks the proficiency, because he has a lot of knowledge of magic, but a muggle would need to have a background in magic to make the roll.

Your position (correct me if I am misstating it) seems to be that only people with the proficiencies can roll. That is more fair (it doesn't give free abilities to wizards). Assuming that you make this rule clear at chargen, it leads to predictable results (a good thing). But it is the opposite of what the rules say happen.

Solusek

2015-02-21, 02:28 PM

Your position (correct me if I am misstating it) seems to be that only people with the proficiencies can roll.

Really my position is just that I think it's silly that a mass of untrained people rolling d20's will often beat the skilled person on a knowledge check roll because one of them is bound to roll high. This devalues the trained person in many situations and makes it so they don't get to be in the spotlight when their particular skill comes up in play. A mass of d20 rolls is more important than being trained in a skill unless the DC to succeed is over 20. I think for specialized trained knowledge this doesn't make any sense.

If you got 20 people in a room. One of them a professional computer programmer, and 19 of them who don't code. Now ask them a programing question. Why is one of the untrained people who happened to roll a 19 check knowing this information over the person who is trained and has a +6 bonus just because he only rolled a 8. It's silly and doesn't make sense. When the programming question comes up it should be the person(s) trained in it who gets the spotlight and can put their knowledge to the test to see if they can figure it out. Not just a group of untrained people rolling a mass of d20s to see if one can roll high.

I don't really like the idea of not letting players roll, but I'm not sure how else to solve the issue that I see. Any ideas?

Chronos

2015-02-21, 07:17 PM

That's basically inherent to the concept of bounded accuracy, which is pretty tightly tied to the core of 5th edition.

MeeposFire

2015-02-22, 02:17 AM

That's basically inherent to the concept of bounded accuracy, which is pretty tightly tied to the core of 5th edition.

Actually it has more to do with using such a big die (d20) with small modifiers than anything. You get the same thing in 3e until you get enough levels (or otherwise get something that improves your modifier by a bunch) to make the die irrelevant. A 1st level character in 3e with decent stats (+3 bonus), skill focus, and max ranks still loses to a great die roll by a nobody (with just a +1 to their skill stat) if the skilled character only gets a mediocre roll (say takes 10).

Of course the big difference is that in 3e you relatively quickly get to the point where rolling the die is not needed whereas rolling probably going to be needed in 5e regardless of what level you are unless you use some form of variable DC challenges.

hawklost

2015-02-22, 09:48 AM

-snip-

Finally, bear in mind that your position if far off on one side of what we have even been arguing. Hawklost's position, (correct me if I am misstating it) is that characters without a proficiency need to have the appropriate background to make a check. So the wizard can roll arcana, even if he lacks the proficiency, because he has a lot of knowledge of magic, but a muggle would need to have a background in magic to make the roll.
-snip-.

Close, but when I say background with a lowercase b, I actually mean story background, not mechanical. A person who had a Sailor Background and Barbarian mechanically, with no knowledge proficencies, I would as a DM, give any roll related to the sea, any roll related to magical items and effects that would help him at sea, lots of information related to general kingdoms and most ports (where those bars are is very important!). What I wouldn't give them from that class and background is ancient dusty dungeons that are in the middle of the land, knowledge related to the histories of land based kingdoms (general names and slight location excepted) and even creatures that would not get anywhere close to the sea. Now, if they then write me a backstory that says that they were a young noble from Kingdom X when a raiding party grabbed them and wisked them away as a slave and when Pirates took out the slaver ship carrying them to a new land, they decided to become a sailor because they loved the sea, suddenly they would be able to make knowledge checks related to Kingdom X and all its information but I would give them a small penalty.

If a second person gave me a background saying that they have never been to the sea, then unless they have the proficiency on a knowledge check, they would have aboslutely no more than the very basic information of sea creatures, weather effects on the sea ect. It wouldn't matter if they had an Int 20 or not, if they never bothered learning something they don't get the information immediately.

Again, all this changes as the campeign goes on, as the characters grow and as they pick up knowledge. The Sailor would learn about land based animals from Kingdoms that are landlocked if they start to travel around those areas. The second person would quickly learn about sea effects as they went to sea (but unless they made an effort to learn more about the sea, it would be general knowledge i.e. Whales = Big and can tip boats, contrary to some beliefs the storms are caused by the gods of the sea Not natural weather patterns like on land (if that is how the game is built))

Gnaeus

2015-02-22, 10:03 AM

My bad Hawk. I understood that was what you meant, I should have remembered that background is a term of art now and said backstory or something. Just trying to clarify the differences in position.

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-22, 02:31 PM

My bad Hawk. I understood that was what you meant, I should have remembered that background is a term of art now and said backstory or something. Just trying to clarify the differences in position.

The problem with his actual position is that people know tons and tons of trivia that has literally nothing to do with their personal histories or experiences.

The 5e system accurately reflects this in that anyone can attempt the check, it just might be a difficult one (ie not commonly known).

Gnaeus

2015-02-22, 03:33 PM

hawklost

2015-02-22, 05:24 PM

I would argue that modern people with access to Google and other research material (and loads more free time to play around on the internet than truely needed, Me included) know massive amounts of trivia. Someone who does not have access to that? Not so much.

Looking at history, many people who lived in a town with a blacksmith would know he worked metals to make most of the work. They might even know that he uses Iron to make most common items. But they probably wouldn't be able to say what kind of striking the Blacksmith used to make a special sword or who made it purely by the make/style/markings on it. Blacksmith with exceptional skills? Check, Bob the Blacksmith who lived 100 years ago and made only longswords for the king of X but his technique was lost through history? Not a chance

In Dnd, most people seem to know that Wizards do A and Clerics can do B magical effects. They don't know how those effects actually work though, nor do they know how to activate an item by looking at it.

Lets grab a quick example for LotRs (yes, I know it isn't perfect but works very well)

Hand any random person on the streets the One Ring and ask them to give you details
None would really think to put it into a Fire to get the inscription.
They might notice it is an effect to make someone want to posses it, but most wouldn't notice that effect
They could find out about the invisibility by putting it on

So, giving someone the Ring to look at and asking them details they tell you only one real thing. That the ring seems very valuable and that they wish to have it. (Most players will never just place a magical item on themselves without actually trying to figure it out first because of a chance it being cursed)

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-22, 05:59 PM

Oh, I agree with you. And in truth, background certainly plays into it. I have difficulty imagining a character with the sage background whose backstory does not allow them to make any knowledge check in his game. I was mostly trying to clarify the difference between the argument Hawklost and I had been having and Solusek's position, without strawmaning anyone.

Don't worry, you weren't strawmanning, I just don't see any justification for disallowing the check given that information known has 0 correlation with intelligence.

Chronos

2015-02-22, 09:07 PM

Quoth MeeposFire:

Actually it has more to do with using such a big die (d20) with small modifiers than anything. You get the same thing in 3e until you get enough levels (or otherwise get something that improves your modifier by a bunch) to make the die irrelevant. A 1st level character in 3e with decent stats (+3 bonus), skill focus, and max ranks still loses to a great die roll by a nobody (with just a +1 to their skill stat) if the skilled character only gets a mediocre roll (say takes 10).
A nobody is likely to know more than a first-level character because a first-level character is a nobody. Once you get high enough level to be a somebody, you had a very good chance of beating that nobody.

And hawklost, I don't know how old you are, but I was carting around plenty of useless trivia since well before I had access to the Internet. I did have libraries, of course, but then, depending on the setting, a D&D character might, too.

Kurald Galain

2015-02-23, 02:46 AM

And hawklost, I don't know how old you are, but I was carting around plenty of useless trivia since well before I had access to the Internet. I did have libraries, of course, but then, depending on the setting, a D&D character might, too.

The problem with the heaps of trivia that most people know is that a lot of it is inaccurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions).

Gnaeus

2015-02-23, 08:11 AM

In Dnd, most people seem to know that Wizards do A and Clerics can do B magical effects. They don't know how those effects actually work though, nor do they know how to activate an item by looking at it.

Lets grab a quick example for LotRs (yes, I know it isn't perfect but works very well)

Hand any random person on the streets the One Ring and ask them to give you details
None would really think to put it into a Fire to get the inscription.
They might notice it is an effect to make someone want to posses it, but most wouldn't notice that effect
They could find out about the invisibility by putting it on

So, giving someone the Ring to look at and asking them details they tell you only one real thing. That the ring seems very valuable and that they wish to have it. (Most players will never just place a magical item on themselves without actually trying to figure it out first because of a chance it being cursed)

No no! I like this example. The one ring is unique (+DC) and tricksy (+DC). Gandalf is a Celestial/Wizard (Arcana +10-12?), thousands of years old, who is probably in the top 5 and almost certainly top 10 ring experts on the planet (having been sent from heaven to destroy it, and given the fact that he has been wearing one of the three for some time.) The DC is so high, that Gandalf has to ride to Gondor to study in a library to ID it. DC 20 (its a ring of power), 25 (Throw it in a fire), 35 (Its the fracking one ring!!!). I agree, the muggle can't get it.

But we also came across a Troll hoard, didn't we? In that encounter, one of the high int dwarf fighters (Thorin), the high int rogue (Bilbo) and Gandalf all realized that 3 weapons were special (and immediately swiped them for themselves). Gandalf rolled really low, and came up with the info that they were elvish, and used his Sage background feature to tell party where to go for more info (presumably, having fought in those wars, with a good result he could have explained that these were the swords of his friends Bobindell and Steveolas). Fast forward to the goblin caves. In that encounter, a bunch of presumably low int, no arcana goblins (with, one presumes, a circumstance bonus for being goblins and another one for the way the swords were glowing at the time), immediately and from across the room not only recognized the swords as magical and elf made, but knew them by name, getting a better result and more information than Gandalf did on his first check (in D&D terms, they probably had a good idea that the swords were Orc-bane). Clear indication that one doesn't need a magical background (Edit: I did it again. Backstory) to make Arcana checks. DC 15 (id them as magical) DC 20 (Elvish, an Int or History check would give more info on elves, like who their enemies were) DC 25 (Glamdring and Orcrist or Beater and Biter, gives you knowledge of special properties) Racial bonuses on check for being orcish or elvish. If the swords are glowing blue at the time, DCs drop to 0/15/20 or lower.

Chronos

2015-02-23, 10:45 AM

(presumably, having fought in those wars, with a good result he could have explained that these were the swords of his friends Bobindell and Steveolas).
Nitpick: Glorfindel and Turgon. Those swords were a Big Deal.

And while we're at it, while the party loremaster managed to pick out the two best swords (at least that they were really damn good, even if he didn't know all the details), the party rogue with no relevant background or backstory whatsoever was still able to pick out another magical sword that the loremaster completely overlooked, and eventually to figure out some of its properties (that it was also from Gondolin, that it disliked orcs, that it was really nice against spiders). By the end of the book, Bilbo ends up knowing more about Sting than even Elrond did.

Gnaeus

2015-02-23, 10:51 AM

Nitpick: Glorfindel and Turgon. Those swords were a Big Deal.

And while we're at it, while the party loremaster managed to pick out the two best swords (at least that they were really damn good, even if he didn't know all the details), the party rogue with no relevant background or backstory whatsoever was still able to pick out another magical sword that the loremaster completely overlooked, and eventually to figure out some of its properties (that it was also from Gondolin, that it disliked orcs, that it was really nice against spiders). By the end of the book, Bilbo ends up knowing more about Sting than even Elrond did.

Counter nitpick. Gandalf didn't pick out the sword and give it to Thorin. "Gandalf and Thorin each took one of these; and Bilbo took a knife in a leather sheath". Then in the next paragraph Gandalf near fails his arcana check.

Where does the information re Orcrist come from? Elrond says that the king of Gondolin once wore Glamdring. But Tolkein wiki suggests that Ecthelion may have used Orcrist. Is it from Christopher Tolkein's work, or is it hidden in the Silmarillion somewhere?

hawklost

2015-02-23, 11:09 AM

A nobody is likely to know more than a first-level character because a first-level character is a nobody. Once you get high enough level to be a somebody, you had a very good chance of beating that nobody.

And hawklost, I don't know how old you are, but I was carting around plenty of useless trivia since well before I had access to the Internet. I did have libraries, of course, but then, depending on the setting, a D&D character might, too.

First, unless a player increases their Int or has a Proficiency in the skill check, they will not be any more knowledgeable than a nobody. That is the whole problem. A 20th level adventurer knows know more information about those magical items than a commoner who never left his village assuming the Adventurer and Commoner both have int of +0.

Sure there is a small possibility that the DM will give the Adventurer a modifier to give him a better chance, but considering some of the arguments here, people seem to think that that should not be so because it 'wouldn't be fun' if the commoner was screwed over.

Now, I am old enough to have not used the internet, I am also knowledgeable enough due to reading books (something most pre-industrial people did not do) to have gathered a large bit of trivia in the areas of my reading (even if the books are not text books). That does not mean that everyone is, nor that I should assume everyone has the same basic knowledge trivia that I do (In fact, I know absolutely that most don't). It would be like you saying 'well, I know things about Football so therefore you must know it too, since I enjoy watching it'. I personally know very little about the sport (probably no more than DC 10 level checks and no matter how many times I would try to know more than that, I would fail a check. An infinite number of me in DnD would never get more than a DC10 level of information for it). That is the thing though, modern people, even before the internet are more educated in a wider area than those from farther in the past. We like to project our knowledge base for convenience into the game because some people don't wish to actually pretend to be less knowledgeable.

But we also came across a Troll hoard, didn't we? In that encounter, one of the high int dwarf fighters (Thorin), the high int rogue (Bilbo) and Gandalf all realized that 3 weapons were special (and immediately swiped them for themselves). Gandalf rolled really low, and came up with the info that they were elvish, and used his Sage background feature to tell party where to go for more info (presumably, having fought in those wars, with a good result he could have explained that these were the swords of his friends Bobindell and Steveolas). Fast forward to the goblin caves. In that encounter, a bunch of presumably low int, no arcana goblins (with, one presumes, a circumstance bonus for being goblins and another one for the way the swords were glowing at the time), immediately and from across the room not only recognized the swords as magical and elf made, but knew them by name, getting a better result and more information than Gandalf did on his first check (in D&D terms, they probably had a good idea that the swords were Orc-bane). Clear indication that one doesn't need a magical background (Edit: I did it again. Backstory) to make Arcana checks. DC 15 (id them as magical) DC 20 (Elvish, an Int or History check would give more info on elves, like who their enemies were) DC 25 (Glamdring and Orcrist or Beater and Biter, gives you knowledge of special properties) Racial bonuses on check for being orcish or elvish. If the swords are glowing blue at the time, DCs drop to 0/15/20 or lower.

Bilbo did not know the sword was magical, he knew it was of high quality, or at least looked nicer made than the rest (oh look, something that is easy to see, its not rusted like the others). That would be like someone in DnD saying 'yup, this sword looks like it is magical because it has runes written on the side, no idea what it does but definitely valuable'. Most DMs don't throw a knowledge check to tell if an item that looks better than others has some magical properties, only a check for what those properties are.

Lets look at just Bilbos sword
Bilbo could never know it glowed in the presense of orcs or Goblins
Bilbo could easily know it was a good looking blade
Bilbo could not know the blade was very very old
Bilbo could not have known it was Elvish made considering he had never seen an elvish blade before
Bilbo could not have known it had Spiders Bane ability on it (good against Spiders)

So by your logic, it those DCs would be something like 21+, 10, 21+, 21+

But, at the same time the Dwarfs could have recognized some of that
Elvish made? Something most people who had seen elvish blades could probably guess at, at best DC 15 but probably closer to 10
Blade is Very Old? Someone who knew History of Elves (or was elven). Something like DC 15-20
Glowed? Depending on if all older elvish blades glowed the same, then this could be something like DC 20
Spider Bane enchantment? Anyone who could read Elvish could guess that. DC 30+ circumstance bonus for reading the language (-20-25 to DC, hey they might mistranlate old elvish)

That just goes to prove that not everyone should be able to make a check. Bilbo could not have gotten any of those bits of knowledge but other people in the group (even those not specialized in knowledge checks) could be capable of figuring out some of the info

Edit:
As for the golbins knowing what those blades were, for one, one of those blades was specifically designed to kill them and therefore they would probably have a huge bonus (or lower DC if you want) to knowing what it was. Second, the one who knew what it was was the King, probably someone who had more knowledge and/or int than his followers. But you didn't see out of 1000+ common goblins any of those recognizing it, and considering the way DCs work, about 50-100 should have been able to tell what it what it was (based on your DCs) and known what it was before it even got close to the King.

ADDED:

Nitpick: Glorfindel and Turgon. Those swords were a Big Deal.

And while we're at it, while the party loremaster managed to pick out the two best swords (at least that they were really damn good, even if he didn't know all the details), the party rogue with no relevant background or backstory whatsoever was still able to pick out another magical sword that the loremaster completely overlooked, and eventually to figure out some of its properties (that it was also from Gondolin, that it disliked orcs, that it was really nice against spiders). By the end of the book, Bilbo ends up knowing more about Sting than even Elrond did.

But that goes to show that knowledge checks for properties in Dnd are screwed up if everyone gets to rolls. Bilbo picked out a good looking sword, but knew nothing of its properties. That isn't exactly hard in most DnD games (oh look, this looks more detailed and better made than the rest). But knowing the properties which only the Loremaster knew anything about was impossible for the rest of the party to attempt.

Gnaeus

2015-02-23, 11:27 AM

Bilbo did not know the sword was magical, he knew it was of high quality, or at least looked nicer made than the rest (oh look, something that is easy to see, its not rusted like the others). That would be like someone in DnD saying 'yup, this sword looks like it is magical because it has runes written on the side, no idea what it does but definitely valuable'. Most DMs don't throw a knowledge check to tell if an item that looks better than others has some magical properties, only a check for what those properties are.

Most of the dwarves failed it. Only the high int characters (Thorin, Gandalf, and Bilbo) made their checks and walked away with a magic weapon. You think if the trained dwarf warriors had realized it was a neat magical weapon, they would have given it to the least combat capable guy in the group? "Among them were several swords of various makes, shapes and sizes". Bilbo's knife had no notable runes. And Glamdring and Orcrist could have been jeweled vendor trash. Thorin and Bilbo were able to tell they were not.

Lets look at just Bilbos sword
Bilbo could never know it glowed in the presense of orcs or Goblins
Bilbo could easily know it was a good looking blade
Bilbo could not know the blade was very very old
Bilbo could not have known it was Elvish made considering he had never seen an elvish blade before
Bilbo could not have known it had Spiders Bane ability on it (good against Spiders)

But he could. His great grand uncle was the renowned Bullroarer Took (Who killed a goblin chief at the battle of Greenfields). His mother, Beladonna, was also an adventurer, although "she never had any adventures after she became Mrs. Bungo Baggins" and his other Took relatives sometimes went on adventures. On a 20, it would not be unreasonable to believe that there was an elvish blade somewhere as a family heirloom that his mother or some cousin had talked about. No, he couldn't identify it by name. But an elvish blade that hates orcs? Unlikely, but plausible.

Chronos

2015-02-23, 11:44 AM

Quoth Gnaeus:
Where does the information re Orcrist come from? Elrond says that the king of Gondolin once wore Glamdring. But Tolkein wiki suggests that Ecthelion may have used Orcrist. Is it from Christopher Tolkein's work, or is it hidden in the Silmarillion somewhere?
It comes from me missing my Tolkien Lore (Int) check by one point, even though I'm proficient in it. Ecthelion, not Glorfindel, is correct.

hawklost

2015-02-23, 11:49 AM

Most of the dwarves failed it. Only the high int characters (Thorin, Gandalf, and Bilbo) made their checks and walked away with a magic weapon. You think if the trained dwarf warriors had realized it was a neat magical weapon, they would have given it to the least combat capable guy in the group? "Among them were several swords of various makes, shapes and sizes". Bilbo's knife had no notable runes. And Glamdring and Orcrist could have been jeweled vendor trash. Thorin and Bilbo were able to tell they were not.

But he could. His great grand uncle was the renowned Bullroarer Took (Who killed a goblin chief at the battle of Greenfields). His mother, Beladonna, was also an adventurer, although "she never had any adventures after she became Mrs. Bungo Baggins" and his other Took relatives sometimes went on adventures. On a 20, it would not be unreasonable to believe that there was an elvish blade somewhere as a family heirloom that his mother or some cousin had talked about. No, he couldn't identify it by name. But an elvish blade that hates orcs? Unlikely, but plausible.

Bolded by me

Again, you make arguments that prove my point more than yours. The reason he possibly knew it was an Elvish blade (And therefore could roll for that) was because of his backstory. A different hobbit who had never had family that went out adventuring (considering it wasn't considered proper for hobbits to adventure) would not have a chance to know the blade was of Elvish make. Proving a point that he required having a background history that gave him a chance, exactly as I said makes sense.

second, he did not know the blade was magical. In no way did Bilbo know the blade was magical, in fact, considering that the blade was barely a dagger for the Dwarves and Elves (and any bigger race) and that it was even barely a short sword for Bilbo, it would make complete sense for the group to fail an investigation check to notice such a small thing. Bilbo succeeded in an investigation better than others but did not have knowledge checks to compliment it.

This is how you could see it in dnd
1) Finish off a dungeon
2) Everyone gets to roll for Investigation, the highest person finds the 'best' item for them
3) Bilbo + 2 others succeed in finding valueable items
4) Bilbo gets highest roll and gets the item most valuable to him, a 'dagger' that is large enough to be a sword for him
5) Bilbo does not get any knowledge checks on the item because he lacks the requisite Background/class/story/Skills to find out anything about it
6) Bilbo allows Gandolf to use his Knowledge checks, Gandolf rolls low, but high enough to say it is more than just valuable, it is Elvish and minor other properties (not all properties)
7) Over the course of adventuring, Bilbo learns more properties of the item than Gandolf originally told him (Without requiring knowledge checks)

In no sense did the whole party take a look at the weapon and attempt to give more details due to Gandolf not knowing much about it. Gandolf failed to get all information and then the checks were over with, they didn't take the weapon to 100 random people and hope for more information. And before you claim that the knowledge checks were DC 20+, with Bounded Accuracy in Dnd 5e, almost nothing is 20+ anymore unless extremely rare (remember, the best you can ever get on a check now is +11 unless DM says you get extra bonuses)