The Mental Abilities

[Elite Hatter]

So I posted a Dex vs. Str thread a few days ago to see what was thought of each in a general sense, not just combat. But now I've gotten to thinking, what about Int, Wis, and Cha? There's only 1 full caster and 2 third casters that needs Int. 2 full casters that need Wis, with Ranger and Monk also favoring it. And 2 full casters, plus paladin and Warlock taking Cha.

As far as skills go Int and Wis have 5 where as Cha has 4. Perception is, from what I've experienced the most used skill. And more Charisma rolls are made for RP purposes. That's my take on it, what do you guys think?

[Tanarii]

I think Int undervalued by the community. For several reasons, not the least of which is a focus on combat optimization. But also because published adventures overuse Perception as opposed to Investigation, and don't build in enough opportunities to use knowledge skills effectively.

Int is generally far more valuable in sandbox play than most linear adventures, especially prepublished ones. That's because linear adventures need to move forward on the plot no matter what, so extra care has to be taken that it can't be held back just because of a failed Int check. Of course, in sandbox play the Wizard already tends to be king.

Charisma use basically boils down to how much social interaction there will be, but it powers four different classes as well. Five if you count Assassin & Swashbuckler rogues.

[Mara]

Int normally requires arcane casting backing it up before people will invest heavily into it and int skills. Sage EKs, ATs, and Wizards can rock int pretty well (the background feature is pretty darn good). Otherwise, people tend to throw a 10 in it and forget about it. They may have an int skill if their background gives them one.

Wisdom covers a wide array of useful skills and is a key save. Charisma is tied to arguably the most directly powerful skills, the ability to manipulate and influence intelligent NPCs.

[JellyPooga]

I actually kind of like the way that perceptions of Int/Wis/Cha has gone in 5ed.

Int is, undeniably, extraordinarily useful when it comes up; knowing the resistances of your foe, recalling that the macguffin is cursed and so on. However, I like that not a lot of people will want or need high Int. Having a bunch of intellectual murder-hobos strikes me as a peculiar set of circumstances. If there's one intellectual in a bunch on dullards on the other hand, his smarts stand out all the more, further enhancing his character concept.

As for Cha; everyone likes being popular, so more people should want high Charisma. That it was an almost universal dump-stat in previous editions bugged me no-end. 5ed seems to encourage more widespread use of it, so I'm a happy bunny.

[hymer]

Sage EKs, ATs, and Wizards can rock int pretty well (the background feature is pretty darn good).

I don't have the book in front of me right now; is the Sage feature dependent on Int? In what way?

[Mara]

I don't have the book in front of me right now; is the Sage feature dependent on Int? In what way?

Knowing where you can find information and understanding it when you see it are two different things.

I know I can search google scholar for information on quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean I could parse the research papers that are written in my mother's native tongue.

[SharkForce]

I don't have the book in front of me right now; is the Sage feature dependent on Int? In what way?

not as such. it fits thematically and the skills you get are int-based, but the background feature just lets you know where to find information, if it can be found at all.

[Tanarii]

Having a bunch of intellectual murder-hobos strikes me as a peculiar set of circumstances.this cracked me up :)


If there's one intellectual in a bunch on dullards on the other hand, his smarts stand out all the more, further enhancing his character concept.this is how I feel about all stats. In a party of five acting as specialists fulfilling a role, I'd hope to see one specialist in each stat, with each using Con secondary. And the others in the 8-12 range.

Unfortunately it doesn't play out that way. Mainly because Dex is only a dump stat for two and a bit classes (Fighter, Paladin, some Clerics). So Dex is as valuable as Con to many classes. And several classes require a secondary in another stat other than Con. So really all classes are MAD except Rogue or Fighter, and even those have a MAD sub-class each.

Edit: that's actually good because otherwise classes would be boring compared to each other. Just commenting on stat specialization overall. I don't feel Int should be special in that regard.

[Naanomi]

Wis is important for as many party members as possible... Wis saves turn people against eachother and perception is an 'everyone should try' sort of skill

Cha is important for people to try not to dump... One person can make most social rolls but you are only as good in the king's ball as your least tactful character

Int is only important for one character... They can make all the rolls necessary and more people getting lower results tends not to matter

[bardo]

Does it bother anyone else that the Wizard is better at Intelligence (Religion) than the Cleric, and that the Cleric is better Wisdom (Perception) than the Ranger?

Bardo.

[CNagy]

Having a bunch of intellectual murder-hobos strikes me as a peculiar set of circumstances.

At that point you have to decide whether you are playing a Tarantino movie or a Guy Richie movie.

[Ralanr]

Just wait until we get official psionics. Then int shall rise again as being important.

Only then shall I make my psionic half-orc pugilist.


But yeah they need to use investigation more. At this point it's really just tradition to use perception.

[JellyPooga]

Does it bother anyone else that the Wizard is better at Intelligence (Religion) than the Cleric, and that the Cleric is better Wisdom (Perception) than the Ranger?

Bardo.

Not really. For one, I rarely play those characters anyway, but that's just me :smallwink: More relevantly, If a Wizard wants to be proficient in Religion, he probably should be better at it than a Cleric. Sure, the Cleric has devoted his life to service in his one, singular faith, but the Wizard has made a point of studying many faiths, researching the undead and so forth. There's a world of difference between a practitioner and a student.

In the Cleric/Ranger Perception stakes, I'm again not too fussed. On his home turf (Favoured Terrain), the Ranger gets double proficiency, which way outstrips the Clerics static bonus from Wisdom, especially given that the Ranger has likely got a fairly respectable Wisdom anyway. Outside of the Rangers home turf, I'll quite happily fluff it that the Ranger is far too busy feeling uncomfortable, complaining about how it's better "back home" and worrying about the locals to really be paying much attention!

[Slipperychicken]

I think Int undervalued by the community. For several reasons, not the least of which is a focus on combat optimization. But also because published adventures overuse Perception as opposed to Investigation, and don't build in enough opportunities to use knowledge skills effectively.

Int is generally far more valuable in sandbox play than most linear adventures, especially prepublished ones. That's because linear adventures need to move forward on the plot no matter what, so extra care has to be taken that it can't be held back just because of a failed Int check. Of course, in sandbox play the Wizard already tends to be king.


Intelligence's benefits (beyond a handful of saving throws) are both ambiguous and completely reliant on a DM's willingness to make it useful. In response to a knowledge check, DMs will often say things like "I don't care that you rolled a 22, you just don't know", or may otherwise negate the check by presenting the player with information that is useless or irrelevant. Even when the DM smiles on the use of knowledge skills, their effects are not clearly outlined, meaning he may give you far less information than would normally justify the skill proficiency. In contrast, the outcome of an attack or damage roll is exceedingly clear and almost never contested by the DM.

Additionally we have the problem that OOC knowledge easily substitutes for the results of a knowledge roll. If I know from reading the Monster Manual that skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, then I don't need a knowledge roll to tell me that. If I thoroughly perused the DM's setting-document and memorized the royal family's coat-of-arms, then I can identify it based on a description without resort to a knowledge roll. Sufficient OOC knowledge, while sometimes frowned upon, can easily do most of the work that a knowledge skill is supposed to do. This devalues knowledge skills in proportion to the player's OOC understanding of his game's setting and mechanics.

[Mr.Moron]

Does it bother anyone else that the Wizard is better at Intelligence (Religion) than the Cleric, and that the Cleric is better Wisdom (Perception) than the Ranger?

Bardo.

The wizard does not necessarily have a higher intelligence modifier than the cleric. It's more accurate to say that a Cleric & Wizard both optimized for the respective spell casting likely sees the Cleric have the better check. One can freely choose to put INT higher than WIS on cleric to play a Cleric who is very intelligent but below maximum potential in spell casting ability.


Not really. For one, I rarely play those characters anyway, but that's just me :smallwink: More relevantly, If a Wizard wants to be proficient in Religion, he probably should be better at it than a Cleric. Sure, the Cleric has devoted his life to service in his one, singular faith, but the Wizard has made a point of studying many faiths, researching the undead and so forth. There's a world of difference between a practitioner and a student.

Most of the former are the latter at least when it comes to their faith. It would be perfectly reasonable to grant a Cleric advantage of checks as they relate to the particular faith he's studied, or a expertise-like profiency boost on issues that directly relate to their faith or topics their faith cares about. Say checks for knowing about undead for Cleric from a faith that specalizes in destroying such creatures vs a wizard with the same check who has no particular specialty with regards to undead.



Additionally we have the problem that OOC knowledge easily substitutes for the results of a knowledge roll. If I know from reading the Monster Manual that skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, then I don't need a knowledge roll to tell me that.

Your character does. You're saying knowledge checks are needed because metagaming exists. I get it's something of a worn cliche to call things metagaming but you're literally defining metagaming here and saying it's the reason intelligence checks aren't useful.

I've never actually see anyone do this. The exchange is always more:


*A Troll Attacks*
Player: Does grisby know trolls are only weak to fire?
Me: I dunno. Roll lore nature, take advantage if he's run into one before.
Player: Naw. *Rolls*. I got 5, he totally knows right?
Me: I'd say no.
Player: Right-O. I attack him with my sword then, it's pointy that oughtta work.
Me: His wounds seem to close!
Player: You don't say? Grisby gasps in surprise.

[Tanarii]

Int is only important for one character... They can make all the rolls necessary and more people getting lower results tends not to matterI like the occasional group check for Knowledge skills. Sometimes the sagely educated one is trusted when he announces the information. But other times, people are all like 'Hell I know this one. This guys wrong.'

Basically, groupthink can be a problem when it comes to knowledge, especially if it's something that is 'common knowledge'. Maybe everyone in-game knows that all Undead take more damage from radiant attacks. Or that Fey spirits are evil unless placated with Milk & Bread, or warded away with a horseshoe. Or whatever the commoner lore might be. A book-learned and smart individual could easily be ignored in such a case.

[mephnick]

I require characters to be proficient in a knowledge to get anything but basic information from a roll, otherwise it defaults to a 10, in an effort to have people take those skills.

However, I consider a lot of things "common knowledge". Every adventurer knows trolls regenerate, they all know radiant is good against undead. However, only someone proficient in Knowledge: Arcana will know the origin of Nothics or it's ability to learn secrets. Only those proficient in Knowledge: Religion will know that Will-o-Wisps can consume life.

You will probably die at some point in my game if no one is good at the knowledge checks and having one character try to cover all of them isn't going to work for long.

[Tanarii]

Intelligence's benefits (beyond a handful of saving throws) are both ambiguous and completely reliant on a DM's willingness to make it useful.Agreed. along with the rest of your post. It's very campaign and DM dependent. If you don't know what kind of campaign you're walking in to, or it's going to be very variable, such as official play/AL, then Int is going to be less dependable. And an unknown value is generally seen as less valuable, with good reason.

Also the OOC knowledge thing is a tricky place to go. I know when I DM homebrew games (previous editions so far), I tend to reskin things a lot, create my own creatures, or not just give a name for what it is the PCs are dealing with. Because then player knowledge is removed from the equation. Again, that's less doable in official play. For DMing 4e Encounters for example I just took it as given that many hard-core players would know the weaknesses and abilities of many enemies. Even then, players would sometimes ask for a Monster Knowledge check to refresh their memory.


they all know radiant is good against undead.Except radiant isn't particularly good in many cases. That's why I called it out as an example how *bad* common knowledge can cause a knowledgeable person to be ignored when he's right.

It's exactly the reason I'll use group checks. Or have several players make checks without letting them know if they succeeded or not, and give them the conflicting information to discuss among themselves. And that assumes it's a situation they can even discuss. Your Sorcerer untrained in the Arcane might not have time for the Wizard to make a Arcana check and tell him what element to use against this fiend their fighting. He might have to make it on his own knowledge then blast away. Sometimes situations don't allow for 'best person makes the check', even for knowledge checks.

[Slipperychicken]

Your character does. You're saying knowledge checks are needed because metagaming exists. I get it's something of a worn cliche to call things metagaming but you're literally defining metagaming here and saying it's the reason intelligence checks aren't useful.


Metagaming is not the only thing that can devalue knowledge skills. I elaborated on the others. Some DMs even encourage metagaming when it comes to monster weaknesses, seeing it as a sign of a player's skill and dedication to the game. Others decry knowledge skills as spoonfeeding players who should already have committed monster weaknesses and setting details to memory.


And I am not saying that knowledge skills are universally useless. I am saying that they are so dependent on changing OOC circumstances that they can easily be rendered useless by them. With a permissive DM, knowledge skills can be invaluable (as they should be IMO). But my point is that this is not always the case.

[JoeJ]

Only those proficient in Knowledge: Religion will know that Will-o-Wisps can consume life.

Why would someone with proficiency in Knowledge: Religion necessarily know that? Which god created will-o-wisps, yes. Or what gods (if any) will-o-wisps typically worship. Or which deities like/dislike/don't care about them. Or why they didn't go to whatever afterlife they should have. Or whether or not being killed by a will-o-wisp affects the afterlife of the victim. But details about their attacks and/or defenses sounds to me more like Nature or Arcana.

[ruy343]

I require characters to be proficient in a knowledge to get anything but basic information from a roll, otherwise it defaults to a 10, in an effort to have people take those skills.

However, I consider a lot of things "common knowledge". Every adventurer knows trolls regenerate, they all know radiant is good against undead. However, only someone proficient in Knowledge: Arcana will know the origin of Nothics or it's ability to learn secrets. Only those proficient in Knowledge: Religion will know that Will-o-Wisps can consume life.

You will probably die at some point in my game if no one is good at the knowledge checks and having one character try to cover all of them isn't going to work for long.

I'm tempted, the next time I write an adventure, to write up a document that I give to players based on their intelligence score. I'll probably base it on the SCAG. If you've got an intelligence of 8-9, you don't know or care about the world around you; with a 10-11, you know something about the fact that you're on a continent, there are several continents, and that other kingdoms exist; if you have a 12-13, you get a document that details more information, and so on until a 19-20 intelligence, which lets you pretty much hold on to the SCAG in-game.

With regards to using intelligence in play, explanations of when to use an investigation check are pretty sparse, and not very well defined. However, as a DM, I try to reward my players with good knowledge rolls by granting them combat advantages or the ability to do things they're not entirely trained in. Can you sail a boat? Are you trained in Vehicles (Water)? No? make a knowledge check to see whether you'll be allowed to attempt to sail without disadvantage. (This also prevents the entire party trying to roll and taking the highest roll; only people who rolled high enough on the knowledge check can participate)

-------NON-SEQUITUR-------

In my experience in games, many players pump Charisma because they're playing a Charisma-heavy class (there are, like, 5 of them, after all) which makes it a dump stat for everyone else at the table, since they're practically guaranteed to have someone around who's good at it.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is something that everyone tries to be decent at, but never puts it at a high priority (because Dexterity is often too important). After all, most parties have at least one of the Wisdom-based classes (Clerics, Druids, Monks), why would they need to put their valuable stat points into it? Most parties I've been in have been filled with ludicrously low wisdom scores... It's a surprise that our DM hasn't dominated anyone yet...

Intelligence only has two classes that can use it (Wizard and Rogue-Mastermind). Many teams don't have any intelligence. But as was pointed out previously, most DMs will lead you to the information you need if you can't get it via dice rolls...

[bardo]

My questions about life:

What was the best thing before sliced bread?
What happened to Old Zealand?
How do mermaids make babies?
If toast always lands buttered-side down, and cats always land on their feet, what would happen if you strapped toast to a cat’s back and dropped it?
If the cake is a lie, are shortcakes little white lies?


The flushing toilet.
Buried under New Zealand.
With mermen.
Cat would land feet down with toast strapped to its back.
The cake is real, so delicious and moist.

You're welcome,
Bardo.

[mephnick]

Except radiant isn't particularly good in many cases.

Yeah, I suppose not, but it won't get resisted. I forgot they didn't have a weakness to it.


Why would someone with proficiency in Knowledge: Religion necessarily know that?

Undead has almost always fallen under Knowledge: Religion

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I suppose not, but it won't get resisted. I forgot they didn't have a weakness to it.I was surprised by it too. Can't remember where I got "all undead = weak to radiant" from. But that's exactly why I picked it as an example. My common knowledge was wrong, and I consider myself educated in D&D monsters. I totally blew my Int check that first time. ;) But you can bet I would have argued someone else who was claiming otherwise into the ground because I was so sure. Especially if I considered them less knowledgeable.

That's why I don't like "one Int check gives 100% accurate information on a pass" scenarios. The arguments that happen on forums alone, among knowledgeable people with access to documentation, shows that isn't necessarily realistic. In the face of a group of people searching their memory, convinced they know the right answer from what their grandmother told them around the fireside at night, it could be far worse.

[bardo]

Group intelligence is a decent substitute for a single smarty-pants character, so long as there are no consequences to failing an intelligence check. A Group with access to the Guidance cantrip would also beat the Wizard on hard checks.

Probability of passing an Intelligence Check.
A party of 4 adventurers, each with INT 10 and no relevant skill proficiencies (rolling at +0).
vs.
A 1st level Wizard with INT 16 and a relevant skill proficiency (rolling at +5).



DC
Group
Wizard


5 (very easy)
99.84%
100%


10 (easy)
95.89%
80%


15 (medium)
75.99%
55%


20 (hard)
18.54%
30%


25 (very hard)
0%
5%



Bardo.

[Ruslan]

Why would someone with proficiency in Knowledge: Religion necessarily know that? Which god created will-o-wisps, yes. Or what gods (if any) will-o-wisps typically worship. Or which deities like/dislike/don't care about them. Or why they didn't go to whatever afterlife they should have. Or whether or not being killed by a will-o-wisp affects the afterlife of the victim. But details about their attacks and/or defenses sounds to me more like Nature or Arcana.
Well, the real answer is of course "the relevant skill is whatever the DM-player collaboration makes it to be".

History? Perhaps you can remember details of previous will-o-wisp encounters in folklore.
Religion? They're undead (or least cavort with undead), so you may have learned about it in the temple.
Nature? I'm actually drawing a blank here, since they're anything but natural, but if you can justify it to your DM, why not.

[Tanarii]

Group intelligence is a decent substitute for a single smarty-pants character, so long as there are no consequences to failing an intelligence check.Damn. I hadn't run the numbers on 5e group checks to see how damn much they work to a groups advantage. Not only that, it looks like you're running the math for a worst case scenario .. all characters in the group have to succeed in a check. (Which makes sense for simplicity and illustrative purposes.)

Guess I'll need to find houserule for Int group checks when I start my first campaign. Or just fall back on the individual checks, with failure by 5 giving bad info, and let the players argue it out.

[MaxWilson]

Int normally requires arcane casting backing it up before people will invest heavily into it and int skills. Sage EKs, ATs, and Wizards can rock int pretty well (the background feature is pretty darn good). Otherwise, people tend to throw a 10 in it and forget about it. They may have an int skill if their background gives them one.

It might be just me, but I can't stand playing low-Int characters because I feel constrained to change my decision-making process. I have a Shadow Monk who rolled well (17, 16, 16, 16, 12, 10) but doesn't mechanically play much differently than point-buy would because one of those 16s went straight into Int. I'm a powergamer at heart so I definitely see that Strength 16 Int 8 would open up all kinds of options (could have Athletics +7 instead of Acrobatics +8, could push enemies around and grapple them, would be Shadow Jump while carrying another person on scouting missions without requiring them to Enhance Ability (Strength) her first). But I could never bring myself to award her an Int of 8 because she's just plain smarter than that.

The lowest-Int character I've played in 5E as a PC is Int 11, Wis 15, Cha 20. He's practically an affable moron compared to my usual, which is a nice change of pace and makes him fun to hang out with. (More patient, less inclined to waspishly nitpick with others, a better listener than talker. He's the PC who actually could make "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" stick.) But I couldn't bear to make him Int 8. That's practically "alien creature" territory.


It's exactly the reason I'll use group checks. Or have several players make checks without letting them know if they succeeded or not, and give them the conflicting information to discuss among themselves. And that assumes it's a situation they can even discuss. Your Sorcerer untrained in the Arcane might not have time for the Wizard to make a Arcana check and tell him what element to use against this fiend their fighting. He might have to make it on his own knowledge then blast away. Sometimes situations don't allow for 'best person makes the check', even for knowledge checks.

It's entertaining to have everyone make separate checks (without knowing what they rolled) and pass out monster stats on index cards to each player based on what they roll. They can compare notes to try to figure out what the real stats are. One of my players' PCs has a gigantic phobia of vampires because his original (badly-failed) knowledge check told him that they have something like 300 HP, a ton of spells, and regenerate 30 HP per round. The player has since mentioned to me that he's figured out that vampires actually aren't all that tough, but his PC still has the phobia because nothing has happened that would change his mind. The one vampire they met turned into a diplomatic negotiation instead of a fight, and he turned into an ally... then the vampire got killed almost casually by a red dragon, so now the PC is really, really frightened of that dragon.

[JoeJ]

Undead has almost always fallen under Knowledge: Religion

ISTR that was a 3+ thing, and it never made much sense to me. The whole idea of certain creatures being the exclusive domain of one particular skill seems completely absurd. When I DM, I tend to let Nature deal with the physical(ish) aspects of any type of creature, Arcana with its magical abilities, Religion with its interaction with deities and with the various faiths, and History with its society or interaction with other societies.

So, for a will-o-wisp, a successful Religion check won't tell you how it attacks, but it might let you remember that the Book of the Revelation of Duntham Kim contains a prayer against will-o-wisps that can make your Turn Undead ability more effective.

[Ralanr]

Kinda saddened that engineering isn't a thing in 5e. Is that suppose to use investigation?

[Slipperychicken]

Kinda saddened that engineering isn't a thing in 5e. Is that suppose to use investigation?

I think it'd be appropriate to houserule "Architect's Tools" to add proficiency to the relevant checks. Either that, or Tinker's Tools.

[CNagy]

Kinda saddened that engineering isn't a thing in 5e. Is that suppose to use investigation?

Knowledge: Student Loans? Investigation would work, I think. I use it as a catch-all skill for book-learning-based problem solving. It's not like Intelligence skills couldn't use a boost in usefulness, after all. So Investigation to figure out structural engineering flaws in a given structure, or to create such a structure on parchment. Tool proficiencies would be necessary to build the structure for real.

[Raimun]

I once played a half-orc barbarian with Intelligence of 3 in 5e.

If you aren't a Wizard (or Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster), you certainly don't need intelligence in this game.

I mean, c'mon, how often do you really fight against an illusionist?

[Tanarii]

I mean, c'mon, how often do you really fight against an illusionist?In my experience, any time the DM wants to drive his players insane. :) It seems to be more common among grognards. Ditto traps.

[Saeviomage]

I feel like int needs significantly more benefits thrown its way. A couple of D&D generations of sacred cows have royally messed things up (ie - tracking, perception, herbalism and animal handling are all wisdom based because of rangers and druids, medicine is wisdom based because of clerics, disabling traps is dex based because of rogues), the whole tool proficiency fiasco, devaluing knowledge skills and some confusion around perception vs investigation have left int being a terrible stat to have points in.

Personally I'd clarify the rules on investigation and knowledge skills, hand out bonus languages for intelligence and probably make medicine and herbalism int proficiencies. That should be enough to bring it up to par.

[JoeJ]

So which of the mental abilities should I use for a non-clerical healer? I'm thinking about an NPC based on the druid in the MM (not the druid PC class), but with spells chosen from the cleric and/or bard list. I could leave the ability scores as they are, and have them cast spells based on their being attuned to nature and the body, or I can swap Wisdom and Charisma, and have them cast spells based on the strength of their compassion and commitment to helping people. Or I could even switch Wisdom with Intelligence and say that their understanding of the flow of energy through the body allows them to cast spells. Which way do you think sounds the most reasonable, considering that in any case they are not directly channeling the power of a deity to heal?

[bardo]

Damn. I hadn't run the numbers on 5e group checks to see how damn much they work to a groups advantage. Not only that, it looks like you're running the math for a worst case scenario .. all characters in the group have to succeed in a check. (Which makes sense for simplicity and illustrative purposes.)

Guess I'll need to find houserule for Int group checks when I start my first campaign. Or just fall back on the individual checks, with failure by 5 giving bad info, and let the players argue it out.

Yes, the numbers are for pretty much the weakest group imaginable. If a few of them have an INT modifier, or if it's 5 players rather than 4, or if they have access to the Guidance cantrip, the table tilts so much more in the group's favour. Strength in numbers, as they say.

I'm sure it's much more common to fail an intelligence check with "I don't know" than to give a wrong answer. Maybe if you fail by 5 or less you think you know the answer but give a wrong one.

Wrong answers are a fun element to add to the game, but they aren't much of a hurdle. The group can easily reason which of the conflicting answers is more likely. It can be funny if the smarty-pants gives a wrong answer and then has to admit he was wrong and the barbarian was right :smalltongue:

Bardo.

[Tanarii]

Wrong answers are a fun element to add to the game, but they aren't much of a hurdle. The group can easily reason which of the conflicting answers is more likely. It can be funny if the smarty-pants gives a wrong answer and then has to admit he was wrong and the barbarian was right :smalltongue:You're making me realize that the group check is supposed to already represent that in-group arguing going on.

I guess my experience with arguing over disagreements on information is that it tends to go around in circles without much being resolved. I wonder where I could have gotten that kind of experience? *clicks on link to go back to forums*

[JoeJ]

If the party does a lot of traveling, an Intelligence roll would be reasonable to properly interpret any maps, charts, or directions they may have, with proficiency in navigator's tools allowing the character to add their proficiency bonus. (For some specialized information, like a book of sailing directions, proficiency in navigator's tools might be required to have a chance to understand it at all.)

[bardo]

I guess my experience with arguing over disagreements on information is that it tends to go around in circles without much being resolved. I wonder where I could have gotten that kind of experience? *clicks on link to go back to forums*

Haha. Now I can walk away from this thread, laughing!

Bardo.

[Susano-wo]

Regarding skills and their attributes. I've long been in favor of using a whatever attribute is reasonable houserule. Take INT vs DEX on disable device. Both can be appropriate. You might fail if you are not nimble enough to disable the device, but you will also fail if you fail to reason through the process of disabling that device. I would be likely to allow whatever attribute that can make sense work for that skill. I know this might allow consolidation of attributes, but there is a limit to how far you can go. I wouldn't allow STR as disable device--If you were going to be brute forcing it, you would just roll a STR check to break it.

My group already does this with intimidate between CHA and STR, and I would be tempted to allow other attribute in the right circumstances. Against another academic? sure, roll INT based intimidate (though it might be better to just allow a knowledge skill to sub for intimidate there). Just took a lot of damage without it apparently phasing you? Sure you can roll a CON intimidate check. I find that realistically, many skills will have different appropriate stats, depending on the circumstances.

[georgie_leech]

Regarding skills and their attributes. I've long been in favor of using a whatever attribute is reasonable houserule. Take INT vs DEX on disable device. Both can be appropriate. You might fail if you are not nimble enough to disable the device, but you will also fail if you fail to reason through the process of disabling that device. I would be likely to allow whatever attribute that can make sense work for that skill. I know this might allow consolidation of attributes, but there is a limit to how far you can go. I wouldn't allow STR as disable device--If you were going to be brute forcing it, you would just roll a STR check to break it.

My group already does this with intimidate between CHA and STR, and I would be tempted to allow other attribute in the right circumstances. Against another academic? sure, roll INT based intimidate (though it might be better to just allow a knowledge skill to sub for intimidate there). Just took a lot of damage without it apparently phasing you? Sure you can roll a CON intimidate check. I find that realistically, many skills will have different appropriate stats, depending on the circumstances.

That's how skills in 5e are presented actually. They're Ability Checks that a Proficiency can apply to. As written in the book at least, the Character Sheet my group uses has them recorded like 3.X skills.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience, any time the DM wants to drive his players insane. :) It seems to be more common among grognards. Some of us grognardish sorts played with Illusionists that were pre 1e AD&D ... Strategic Review Issue Number 4 vintage Illusionists ... talk about license to run amok!

Our party's Illusionist spent was quite imaginative. He seemed to spend a great deal of time trying the patience of both the DM and the rest of our party in equal measure, to include the time he conjured up a random White Dragon that my druid believed ... I still get chills from that memory ...

It took less than two pages of the SR to outline the class (Half of one page had a cartoon on it) ... and it worked! Rules Lite For the Win!!!!!


I guess my experience with arguing over disagreements on information is that it tends to go around in circles without much being resolved. I wonder where I could have gotten that kind of experience? *clicks on link to go back to forums*

You win the thread, and some cake made by Elan.

[Theodoxus]

That's how skills in 5e are presented actually. They're Ability Checks that a Proficiency can apply to. As written in the book at least, the Character Sheet my group uses has them recorded like 3.X skills.

Yeah, I wish the sheets weren't trying to straitjacket the attributes to skills like that. Much cleaner if the skills only marked if you were proficient or not - then the DM would call for whatever they felt best for the attribute at the time, as suggested above.

Sure, some skills are pretty much perma-locked into a specific stat... I'd be really hard pressed to allow Athletics to use anything other than a physical attribute - and if left to only Climb/Grapple/Jump/Swim then Strength only. I might allow Int to be used with Acrobatics (mental gymnastics! - yes, I know that's not what that means - sheesh) - but call for a Strength check to go along with it. Parkour is just as much mental as physical (and more strength than dex, tbh, though both help).

It'd be nice if there were rules for combining multiple attributes into a single check. Picking one or the other just means the player will always pick their best. Forcing a specific attribute means the player is limited in creativity if they can't overrule it (I studied to be a doctor with book learnin', why is that a wisdom check?).

I guess I'm just playing the wrong game. I want super complicated rules for mechanics and really simplistic rules for classes (kinda the opposite of what we got with Pathfinder).

[Tanarii]

Character sheets probably tend to show proficiencies tied to specific ability scores because they are. Allowing proficiency bonus for a skill to apply to a non-standard ability score is a Variant rule.

IMO people have a tendency to go a little crazy inventing ways to get their best stat (via tools, or variant rule stat switching) and/or just apply a prof bonus to checks (ie digging for way to make a skill apply at all). DMs are perfectly fine defining an "Engineering" check as a straight Int check that doesn't have an applicable skill or tool. Then setting the DC appropriately. Not everything has to fit under a skill or tool, or be appropriate for stat switching. (Assuming you use the variant rule for the latter)