Rant about people say dump int

[Sir cryosin]

DM's if your player has a low int make them rp it. Mechanically there may not be a lot of use for int. But your playing a trpg you should rp that 8 to int. A 10 is average so a 8 is a farmer education

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't think there's much noticeable difference between an 8 Int (slightly below average), a 10 (average), and a 12 (slightly above average), honestly. Certainly nothing you'd notice in normal conversation.

[CantigThimble]

Unless you got into a discussion on the finer points of an academic topic I don't think 8 int would be noticeable. A pretty decent portion of the population has 8 int (at least around 10% I would think) and it doesn't disrupt their everyday lives. It would be like when you get into a discussion of history, philosophy or politics and then realize that the person you're talking to hasn't really thought through their views very much. The rest of the time no one would notice and it wouldn't really matter.

[Millstone85]

If an unarmed strike from an 8 Str character deals 0 damage, I could see an 8 Int being roleplayed as a bit of a hindrance.

[Anonymouswizard]

I agree with the basic idea, in that a player who dumps a stat should roleplay it (my character with 8 Strength is going to find the first opportunity to put stuff in the Barbarian's backpack). 8 INT shouldn't be more than 'your slow on the update sometimes', but for proper dumping (a stat of 6 or less) I would want to see a noticeable drop in reasoning ability.

Strangely, if you force people to roleplay it, a lot of people will want to drop low-int characters. Roleplaying a borderline mentally disabled person (INT 3) is not fun for more than a session or two, although a couple of points missing isn't any less fun than 18 INT.

[mgshamster]

A low int person also doesn't analyze why they believe what they believe. They're more prone to just believe whatever their family or culture has taught them with no regards to whether it's true or harmful to others.

In my home games, a character with high int is allowed metagame help from the other players, even if their characters are separated. If their characters are together, other players' ideas will usually be roleplayed from the characters with higher int. A character with low int is not allowed to use metagame help from other players, and very low int may have to make rolls to see if the character can act on the ideas the actual player may have, as judged by the GM and the entire group.

[Sitri]

I still tie INT to skills to make it a little more mechanically relevant. For every +1 modifier you have, you can select an additional skill, tool, or language proficiency. For a -1, lose one of your choice.

[Sir cryosin]

I don't think there's much noticeable difference between an 8 Int (slightly below average), a 10 (average), and a 12 (slightly above average), honestly. Certainly nothing you'd notice in normal conversation.

May not in normal conversation between a 8 and 10 but there is a differents in in vocabulary and problem solving between a 8 and a 12 and higher. A 8 shouldn't becoming up with complicated and complex plans, figuring things out

[Pex]

DM's if your player has a low int make them rp it. Mechanically there may not be a lot of use for int. But your playing a trpg you should rp that 8 to int. A 10 is average so a 8 is a farmer education

1) Blame Point Buy for forcing 8 IN on everyone who doesn't need it just so they can be competent on what their class is supposed to do.

Edit: Those who can may dump CH instead, sometimes both.

2) Blame 5E for not making IN more useful than saving throws for illusions and a couple of Knowledge checks only those who need IN care about anyway.
3) The farming industry would like to have a word with you on what it takes to run a farm.

[Syll]

There is also wisdom to take into account. I define int, ( in the context of D&D) as strictly academic knowledge... Which is to say that knowing facts/ workings about a field of study has zero bearing on IQ

[Ralanr]

1) Blame Point Buy for forcing 8 IN on everyone who doesn't need it just so they can be competent on what their class is supposed to do.

Edit: Those who can may dump CH instead, sometimes both.

2) Blame 5E for not making IN more useful than saving throws for illusions and a couple of Knowledge checks only those who need IN care about anyway.
3) The farming industry would like to have a word with you on what it takes to run a farm.

It really isn't respected.

[Anonymouswizard]

I still tie INT to skills to make it a little more mechanically relevant. For every +1 modifier you have, you can select an additional skill, tool, or language proficiency. For a -1, lose one of your choice.

Man, I wish my DM did this, I would kill to get my rogue Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand proficiency, but face skills were just more important to the concept. Sleight of Hand would be extra useful actually, and this houserule would make me move my 13 to INT instead of WIS.


There is also wisdom to take into account. I define int, ( in the context of D&D) as strictly academic knowledge... Which is to say that knowing facts/ workings about a field of study has zero bearing on IQ

Except it isn't. That's what a lot of INT skills represent, but not Investigation. The PhB is pretty clear that INT is reasoning (as in your ability to start from a set of premises and reach a reasonable solution), whereas WIS is perceptiveness (so noticing and applying stuff). Your actual INT score has nothing to do with your academic knowledge, although it influences your ability to apply it (bonus to such skills).

Still zilch to do with IQ, but a pretty big difference to 'strictly academic knowledge'. (because then why would Investigation be INT?)

[AstralFire]

IMX, Int dumping is usually more of a theoretical problem than one in play. While you receive real mechanical benefits for the three or four stats your class doesn't use, they're situational enough that most players just choose what they want to focus on.

I've found untying Int from number of skills has made people willing to play the big stupid ham more often and get a real kick out of it, but not to the point of abandoning the intelligent characters. Devising situational puzzles and obstacles that players can get hints on with the aid of Int checks might be a good way to assist in making the high int characters feel like they're getting bang for their buck; removing skills from dumb characters makes them feel like they're dumb soldiers with no life outside of smashing face.

If you believe your character simply lacks sufficient skills, I do allow players to pick up I've one additional proficiency of any type, and I allow the skilled feat to improve any one ability score by one point. Combined with banning variant humans but giving everyone a feat to start, I've been happy with the results.

[Sir cryosin]

1) Blame Point Buy for forcing 8 IN on everyone who doesn't need it just so they can be competent on what their class is supposed to do.

Edit: Those who can may dump CH instead, sometimes both.

2) Blame 5E for not making IN more useful than saving throws for illusions and a couple of Knowledge checks only those who need IN care about anyway.
3) The farming industry would like to have a word with you on what it takes to run a farm.

I work on a farm thank you I'm texting this as I sit in my truck. I should clarify for you I was talking about the intelligence of farmers during middle ages were they didn't have access to formal education. Because most high fantasy games and literature represent that time era.

[mgshamster]

I work on a farm thank you I'm texting this as I sit in my truck. I should clarify for you I was talking about the intelligence of farmers during middle ages were they didn't have access to formal education. Because most high fantasy games and literature represent that time era.

True or not, the intellectual capabilities of someone really isn't determined by thier education. Education helps broaden ones knowledge, but not their intellectual capability.

More likely what you mean to say is that the minimum qualifications on knowledge and intellect required for farming in modern times is higher than what was needed a thousand years ago. Which may or may not be true.

Even more specifically, the thought you're trying to convey (without getting tied up in the specific examples) is that someone with a low int and minimal-to-no training should only qualify for working a job as an unskilled laborer and wouldn't be able to competently hold a position that required more thought than that.

[AstralFire]

Exposure to challenging mental situations from a young age does influence someone's intellect as they develop, so it's not as though the relationship is entirely unfounded, just murky and beyond the ability of any responsible system to portray in a way that is both accurate and fun.

[mgshamster]

Exposure to challenging mental situations from a young age does influence someone's intellect as they develop, so it's not as though the relationship is entirely unfounded, just murky and beyond the ability of any responsible system to portray in a way that is both accurate and fun.

Fair.

But I'm often reminded of people who are very intelligent - more so than I with my advanced degrees - who have had very minimal education (some with no formal education at all, who've spent their entire lives herding goats in the back sands of Iraq). So I do my best not to judge someone by their education.

Conversely, exposure to critical thinking practices seems to have less of an influence than exposure to a high stress environment. Children living in high stress environments on a consistent basis (very high crime areas, abusive parents, etc) are much more inhibited. When the fight or flight reflexes are kicking in on a somewhat permanent basis, their soft skills are unable to develop - and as they happens they become unable to develop critical thinking skill. Simply providing a safe and loving environment does much more than exposure to critical think tools. There's some decent research Thad come out in the past ten years out that illuminates this topic. Fascinating stuff.

Of course, once you have a safe and loving environment, then exposure to critical thinking tools and playtime is more beneficial than not - as determined by kindergarten studies over the past 40 years (children were tracked their entire lives, and those who had playful interactions with both children and adults ended up more successful in all areas of life than children who were ignored - which was more common than not 40-50+ years ago).

Needless to say - you're right that it's very complex and much more complex than a simple gaming system like 5e would be able to reasonably cover.

[Talamare]

People place a great value on the importance of Perception
However, I think good DMs should make that one of the less important skills and REALLY use the full breadth of skills available
In particular Investigation, which basically a fine tuned Perception

[Temperjoke]

I think this topic could be expanded to any dumped stat. I think part of the problem is that we have only a couple of numbers to represent a wide variety of aspects of a character. So maybe it's a question of how you represent that "dumped" stat? The barbarian who dumps Int, maybe he can't read, or maybe he doesn't have the attention span to work on a puzzle? The wizard with a low Dex score, maybe he walks with a limp and leans on his staff, or maybe he's just a little clumsy?

[Syll]

Except it isn't. That's what a lot of INT skills represent, but not Investigation. The PhB is pretty clear that INT is reasoning (as in your ability to start from a set of premises and reach a reasonable solution), whereas WIS is perceptiveness (so noticing and applying stuff). Your actual INT score has nothing to do with your academic knowledge, although it influences your ability to apply it (bonus to such skills).

Still zilch to do with IQ, but a pretty big difference to 'strictly academic knowledge'. (because then why would Investigation be INT?)

Academic may have been the wrong connotation, where 'education' and 'formal training' also apply

"Noticing and applying stuff" (I.e. Insight check), I think could be a reasonable substitution for the "ability to start from a set of premises and reach a reasonable solution".

[Anonymouswizard]

Academic may have been the wrong connotation, where 'education' and 'formal training' also apply

"Noticing and applying stuff" (I.e. Insight check), I think could be a reasonable substitution for the "ability to start from a set of premises and reach a reasonable solution".

Okay, another way to say it: WIS is intuition, INT is number crunching.

Despite your seeming insistence that noticing and applying stuff is the same as starting from a set of premises and deducing a solution are different things. Wisdom is your character's intellect as it relates to the physical world, Intelligence is your character's ability to break down and rebuild. That's why investigation runs off intelligence, despite having nothing to do with 'education' (and arguably 'formal training' if swordplay isn't, BY THIS DEFINITION ALL COMBAT SHOULD RUN OFF INT AS FORMAL TRAINING APPLIES). Forensics, for the record, would fit as a skill running off an Education stat.

[Clistenes]

I don't like to dump mentals stats below 10. I don't like to roleplay characters as slow or socially inept.

I only like to dump mental stats when I roleplay mad genius Wizards with high Int and low Wis and Cha. Or dwarven warriors with low Cha whose vocabulary is 60 % made of "F*** you!".

[Arkhios]

Intelligence measures the ability to reason and draw logical conclusions, as well as memory. A character with lower than average intelligence might indeed have somewhat slow deductive capabilities, but nothing implies they should have incomplete speech-pattern. Vocabulary might not be as great as with most (as it relies on one's memory), but he could still speak in a same manner as someone with int 10 or more would.

I do agree with you, though, if you dump a stat, no matter which one, you should play it out, not simply ignore and handwave it.

I find it extremely annoying when a player, who obviously might be more intelligent than his character, comes up with an elaborate plan to overcome a challenge, while his int 7 character shouldn't be able to make such conclusions. Not with much detail at least. General idea maybe, but not how each party member should play their part etc.

[Gastronomie]

Honestly I think it's fine for an adventurer with 8 INT to have lots of knowledge required for adventuring (but no so much for everything else). A lot of professional craftsmen don't have high education but have lots of knowledge on their particular special skill.

I know a friend who is a master of Origami (master as in really, top-class in the world - he's created some origami that literally takes months to complete). He has terrible grades in school, but can vaguely estimate how to create an advanced work of origami by just looking at it, and after some fiddling about, re-create it for himself without even looking at the original instructions. People are like that - they may excel in a particular "something" they're really interested in, or need.

Adventurers might not know how to solve algebra problems and they might not be an expert on the kingdom's history, but they should be able to easily think up plans on how to avoid fighting monsters, or how to kill them effectively (unless he's just started adventuring).

Now, that's if it's 8 INT (which, though a bit lower, is IMO still within the "average" zone). If it's 6 or 7, the modifier being -2 instead of -1, things might get different.

[Spectre9000]

If you want to see how to play a low int character, go check out Critical Role on Geek and Sundry and pay attention to Grog.

[Syll]

Okay, another way to say it: WIS is intuition, INT is number crunching.

Despite your seeming insistence that noticing and applying stuff is the same as starting from a set of premises and deducing a solution are different things.

Of course they are different things. My point that one could reasonably substituted for another (not in every situation, mind). I'll give you a RL example; as a new hire at my company there was a 'team building' exercise that involved moving a marble from start to finish line, using only the tools provided (pvc piping, a piece of paper, a spoon, mundane stuff). Fastest time wins. The teams were evenly divided into groups w/o respect to the department they would be working in.... So we had a mechanical engineer in one group, a marketing rep in another, sales in another and unskilled laborers throughout. 3 of the 5 groups came to the same conclusion on the fastest way to transport the marble, independently of one another.

For all the mechanical engineer's training, number crunching, and grasp of laws of physics; at least 1 person in those other 2 groups reached the same conclusion by virtue of Intuition. I.e.... common sense.


That's why investigation runs off intelligence, despite having nothing to do with 'education'[snip]Forensics, for the record, would fit as a skill running off an Education stat.

I had forensics specifically in mind when i wrote my post, as it would be a prime example of formal investigative training, so I'm not sure how you classify it as 'having nothing to do with education'

Regardless, I fail to see why you take umbrage with the fact that intuition can lead to the same end point as number crunching, which is all I was saying to begin with.

[Sception]

Honestly, int hardly deserves to be a stat. It's used by all of one class (that could just as easily have been rolled into wisdom), and a handful of skills, which, again, could be wisdom (and gee it sure would make more sense if the cleric were good at religion or the druid good at nature). And rollplaying int? forget about it. Someone trying to roll play a higher int than themselves doesn't work, and trying to roll play a lower int is often just immersion breaking when it isn't offensive.

Int either needs to be a stat that matters, including having it be the primary stat of more that a single class in the core rules, or ditch it.

It doesn't help that stat points and advancements (if you aren't a fighter) are super limited in this game, and that many classes have multiple primary stats, and several stats everyone needs at least some of (con mostly, but also dex and wis). There are no spare points or advancements to spend on tertiary stats.

[RaynorReynolds]

DM's if your player has a low int make them rp it. Mechanically there may not be a lot of use for int. But your playing a trpg you should rp that 8 to int. A 10 is average so a 8 is a farmer education

Dont tell me what to do!

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't it odd that most games I've played combine Intelligence and Wisdom into one stat?

I don't think I've seen a Wisdom stat outside of D&D. I know my latest attempt at a fantasy game doesn't (it also bundles all casters into a single Priest class who chooses 'aspects' as he levels to build a spell list, and runs off of Mind and Presence). Percrption is an ability keying off Mind, which allows a player to mechanically reflect what their low Mind means.

[Ralanr]

I find it extremely annoying when a player, who obviously might be more intelligent than his character, comes up with an elaborate plan to overcome a challenge, while his int 7 character shouldn't be able to make such conclusions. Not with much detail at least. General idea maybe, but not how each party member should play their part etc.

This is why I hate playing with a low Int (and forcing myself to dump it). I tend to think of (what I think) cleaver solutions to problems. But it doesn't make sense for my character to suggest them sometimes.

I was overjoyed when my lowest roll was a 12 once. It meant that I could act somewhat smart with my barbarian.

[mgshamster]

This is why I hate playing with a low Int (and forcing myself to dump it). I tend to think of (what I think) cleaver solutions to problems. But it doesn't make sense for my character to suggest them sometimes.

There's a fairly easy solution for that - just have the idea come from one of the more intelligent characters instead of yours, if the other players are up for it.

Having an high Int character can be simulated by having the player gain ideas from other players. Also, as a GM I tend to give clues to the high int or high wis characters.

[Cybren]

I think most d&d players (and fans of other nerdy things) tend to overestimate their own intelligence (well, most humans do that, but people into nerdy things tend to do it more, from what I've gathered). As a general rule it's hard to play a character for any length of time that doesn't have something in common with your personality (it's why frequently players lose interest in higher concept character traits or gimmicks like stutters, it's easier to play a character for years if you identify with them).

So there's a confluence of two problems:
1) intelligent players tend to not be able to inhabit a character less intelligent than themselves for an extended period of time

And

2) players tend to be kind of arrogant and dismissive of people that aren't intelligent (or perceived as intelligent). "Well you're clearly not acting like a stupid person. Be dumber!", but in the real world the thing we call "intelligence" is broke up into five parts in d&d: reasoning and ability in academia in Int, intuition and perception in Wis, empathy and emotional intelligence in Cha, coordination and ability to learn physical tasks in Dex, and knowledge and education in proficiencies.
Come to think of it, there's a sixth thing in that, in the real world, the perception of intelligence is incredibly coded by all sorts of things: economic status, racial, ethnic, or national background, gender, so, characters with the same mental stats, but different Races and Backgrounds could be perceived of having two different intelligence levels.

Your character could be an exceptionally eloquent 8 int barbarian because you have 15cha, and to the average person you're "smart" because you're incredibly socially aware. Or perhaps your genius 18int wizard made a joke that went over everyone's head and no one got it so they assume you're a dullard, (such as in Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson, "I wish I owned half that dog" "why?" "So I could shoot my half").

[Lines]

Keep in mind an ape has 6 int and a giant ape 7 int, and these are still beasts who cannot speak, have spells, use weapons or have a class. This isn't 3.5 where stats made sense, if you have an int of under 7 that means you're of animal intelligence (albeit a smart animal, even if a human with ape intelligence couldn't really participate in society an ape is very smart for something that isn't human) and logically can't be a player character.

[Arkhios]

Keep in mind an ape has 6 int and a giant ape 7 int, and these are still beasts who cannot speak, have spells, use weapons or have a class. This isn't 3.5 where stats made sense, if you have an int of under 7 that means you're of animal intelligence (albeit a smart animal, even if a human with ape intelligence couldn't really participate in society an ape is very smart for something that isn't human) and logically can't be a player character.

an ape can't speak due to their physiology, not because they were less intelligent. Apes are known to use crude items as tools. Such as rocks to break hard shells of some fruits.
additionally, apes are social among their own species, not solitary.
Low intelligence doesn't (neccessarily?) make you grain-sack-retard :p

however, you shouldn't compare the stats in monster manual to species in real life, they are more of a guidelines anyway.

[Lines]

an ape can't speak due to their physiology, not because they were less intelligent. Apes are known to use crude items as tools. Such as rocks to break hard shells of some fruits.
Low intelligence doesn't (neccessarily?) make you grain-sack-retard :p

But it does. Apes can't actually use language (http://goodreasonblog.com/2006/04/communication-language-and-apes/), in D&D terms they can't actually be proficient in any of the skills, they're incapable of being taught to use most of the tools an adventurer would use - people forget how special human intelligence really is. In previous editions this was solved by having 3-18 be the range for starting ability scores and having all animals have an intelligence of 1 or 2, in 3.5 the rules specifically stated if the intelligence was above 2 then it was by definition no longer an animal. In 5e however animals can have intelligence of so far 6 (for a real world animal) and 7 (for something that isn't a real world animal, but is still a beast) and by definition an adventurer does not have animal intelligence.

A human of less than 7 intelligence cannot function, they will be able to communicate some concepts but fundamentally be incapable of language. Given that there are some people with severe developmental disabilities who can use language, that means 7 intelligence is reserved for those who are intellectually retarded, with 8 and up being the normal human range. Again, made a lot more sense in 3.5 when you could have say 3-5 being the range for severe mental handicaps, 6-7 being subnormal but still functional and 8+ being within normal range (ie you probably won't notice much difference between 8 and 10)

[Gritmonger]

Children living in high stress environments on a consistent basis (very high crime areas, abusive parents, etc) are much more inhibited. When the fight or flight reflexes are kicking in on a somewhat permanent basis, their soft skills are unable to develop - and as they happens they become unable to develop critical thinking skill. Simply providing a safe and loving environment does much more than exposure to critical think tools. There's some decent research Thad come out in the past ten years out that illuminates this topic. Fascinating stuff.

Of course, once you have a safe and loving environment, then exposure to critical thinking tools and playtime is more beneficial than not - as determined by kindergarten studies over the past 40 years (children were tracked their entire lives, and those who had playful interactions with both children and adults ended up more successful in all areas of life than children who were ignored - which was more common than not 40-50+ years ago).

Needless to say - you're right that it's very complex and much more complex than a simple gaming system like 5e would be able to reasonably cover.

Beg to differ. Being abused makes you turn your critical thinking skills to what will keep you from being abused - your awareness and attention are focused on how to avoid the unavoidable, and as a result, "soft" skills more often revolve around hyperawareness and being attentive for what will and will not result in abuse. If anything, it makes those who have been abused less likely to trust people at face value and look for the "why" in any gesture that doesn't seem to have an immediate motive.

As an example, as a child, I was stunned the first time somebody shared an M&M with me, but I was quite capable at math and science, both of which require substantial critical thinking skills, as well as testing out of all english classes at the college level, which required critical essays with supporting references.

[georgie_leech]

I'd advise against using anything from the MM as evidence of what a character's ability scores mean, unless you can provide a consistent reasoning for why a Tyrannosaurus Rex is more charismatic than many adventurers (9 vs 8).

[Cybren]

But it does. Apes can't actually use language (http://goodreasonblog.com/2006/04/communication-language-and-apes/), in D&D terms they can't actually be proficient in any of the skills, they're incapable of being taught to use most of the tools an adventurer would use - people forget how special human intelligence really is. In previous editions this was solved by having 3-18 be the range for starting ability scores and having all animals have an intelligence of 1 or 2, in 3.5 the rules specifically stated if the intelligence was above 2 then it was by definition no longer an animal. In 5e however animals can have intelligence of so far 6 (for a real world animal) and 7 (for something that isn't a real world animal, but is still a beast) and by definition an adventurer does not have animal intelligence.

A human of less than 7 intelligence cannot function, they will be able to communicate some concepts but fundamentally be incapable of language. Given that there are some people with severe developmental disabilities who can use language, that means 7 intelligence is reserved for those who are intellectually retarded, with 8 and up being the normal human range. Again, made a lot more sense in 3.5 when you could have say 3-5 being the range for severe mental handicaps, 6-7 being subnormal but still functional and 8+ being within normal range (ie you probably won't notice much difference between 8 and 10)

alternatively, there is a bit of inconsistency in the systems with regard to what int means, and qualities other than the int score determine sapience. It's incredibly ridiculous to assume that a a 7 or below int is unable to function. They can function just fine, but their int modifier is -2 or lower. 5e doesn't explicitly define what it is that an ability score precisely means, but given 1) the default method of ability score genrstion is 4d6b3 and 2) it's possible to roll under an 8 in that method and 3) there's no specific rule that says you need to role play <8 int in any way, or that you can assign a roll <8 to int, we can surmise that a character with int <8 might not be "smart" but they can still function.

[Gignere]

They just need to slap a mechanical benefit to int. It is too weak that is why players dump stat. If int gave bonus to AC, initiative and every skill. Not even the Barbarian will be dumping it.

[Gastronomie]

unless you can provide a consistent reasoning for why a Tyrannosaurus Rex is more charismatic than many adventurers (9 vs 8).http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/jurassicpark/images/a/ae/T-rex-jurassic-park-1-.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120816155226

http://1.fwcdn.pl/blog/231334/62729.1.jpgOn topic: Yes, INT is way too limited in its uses. If many saving throws related to mental stuff were Int instead of Wis, could have been better.
And it is certainly weird how Warlock uses CHA instead of INT, despite how the description depicts it as though he/she's a researcher.

[Lines]

They just need to slap a mechanical benefit to int. It is too weak that is why players dump stat. If int gave bonus to AC, initiative and every skill. Not even the Barbarian will be dumping it.
That'd be the one. You used to get an extra skill point for every bonus int mod - now it innately gives nothing.

[Cybren]

Giving straight +1 to any skill or tool proficiency is probably too much for int, given how few skills there are, and how certain tools like thieves tools or the poisoners kit seem to be intentionally given out less frequently. Even restricting it to skills your class normally gets might be too good still.

+1 artisan tool, musical instrument, game, or language might be more balanced, but it is a clunkier rule

[Lines]

Giving straight +1 to any skill or tool proficiency is probably too much for int, given how few skills there are, and how certain tools like thieves tools or the poisoners kit seem to be intentionally given out less frequently. Even restricting it to skills your class normally gets might be too good still.

+1 artisan tool, musical instrument, game, or language might be more balanced, but it is a clunkier rule

That was how it worked back in 3.5, wasn't suggesting it be how it worked now. Strength's advantage should be letting you get high AC, dexterity's advantage should be letting be good at melee and range with the same stat plus better saves and skills, constitution's strength is self evident and it's about equally good for everybody, wisdom's advantage is covering important skills and saves - charisma and intelligence should also be given inherent benefits.

[Cybren]

I would argue how common finesse is (and it adding to damage as well as to hit), the lack of the 1.5 str bonus multiplier for using a two handed weapon, as well as the very-very-very simplified default encumbrance rules, (and the prevalence of many tables to ignore even those) has made str much less valuable than in previous editions as well. Like int, you only have a reason to have it if your class wants it, unlike con, dex, or wis. Cha would be a more common dump stat as well, if it weren't the most common Spellcasting stat

[AstralFire]

Indeed. You can absolutely dump every stat in this game besides Constitution (and I have found Constitution dumps work better than one might expect for games with heavy social/puzzle encounters rather than combat ones).

Once again, if a GM feels int is not getting enough use, you really only need to call for Int checks more often and give player hints based on the results.

[Pex]

Indeed. You can absolutely dump every stat in this game besides Constitution (and I have found Constitution dumps work better than one might expect for games with heavy social/puzzle encounters rather than combat ones).

Once again, if a GM feels int is not getting enough use, you really only need to call for Int checks more often and give player hints based on the results.

But is it really the DM's place to demand players stop dumping IN? They're not his characters. That's not to say a DM should never call for IN (Knowledge) checks just because the party dumped IN, but if only the wizard and perhaps rogue & bard are the ones who have any IN at all to make use of those Knowledge checks should not be giving the DM hissy fits.

[KorvinStarmast]

1) Blame Point Buy for forcing 8 IN on everyone who doesn't need it just so they can be competent on what their class is supposed to do.
Blame the Min Max mind set while you are at it.


2) Blame 5E for not making IN more useful than saving throws for illusions and a couple of Knowledge checks only those who need IN care about anyway.
A fair criticism.

The farming industry would like to have a word with you on what it takes to run a farm.
Yep.

[Lines]

Blame the Min Max mind set while you are at it.

A fair criticism.

Yep.

There's nothing wrong with minmaxing. Pretty much everyone reduces what they don't need their character to be good at and gets more of what they want their character to be good at, minmaxing is just acknowledging it.

[YCombinator]

Intelligence is a hugely useful stat and easy to for a DM to make important to an adventure. I think if you're having trouble with players dumping INT and not feeling like there is any benefit to taking it or penalty for not taking it, then your DM needs to reward knowledge rolls more often.

As a DM, I have new players, so I need to remind my players a lot to make knowledge rolls or perception rolls or even investigation to search a room but I remind them. Low INT players definitely feel the lack and are grateful that the party has been rounded out with some characters with some high INT.

All it takes is a few monster knowledge rolls to show this. You are facing Quaggoth in Out of the Abyss. You've stolen a flask of poison, lucky you. You and your allies are planning an attack on some of the Drow and Quaggoth. I chime in... does anyone want to try to see what they actually know about these races? Oh yes! Me! Knowledge roles are free, who wouldn't want to. I have a sorcerer who has decent INT just because she wanted to be smart. She hit nice high roll on the knowledge of Quaggoth and was immediately told they are immune to poison. My players roll knowledge checks on a lot of stuff now and the high INT character is hugely valuable for this.

I think this is a DM issue. Make INT valuable. If you're ranting to the point where you're sad people are dumping INT, punish it. If you've got some one pumping INT as a secondary stat just for great knowledge, reward it. A good DM will make the players feel the benefit and the penalty of all choices them make because feeling both are fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's nothing wrong with minmaxing. Pretty much everyone reduces what they don't need their character to be good at and gets more of what they want their character to be good at, minmaxing is just acknowledging it. Way to miss the point.

A 27 point buy does NOT require any stat be dumped. Only a min max attitude makes that demand on a point buy.

Min max isn't a bad thing, by itself, and is in a lot of ways helpful in looking at the extreme cases of a character build.

[mephnick]

I think most d&d players (and fans of other nerdy things) tend to overestimate their own intelligence (well, most humans do that, but people into nerdy things tend to do it more, from what I've gathered).

This is very true. The smartest (not most educated) people I know are tradesmen who are definitely not into D&D and comics. Nerds tend to think they're above the pack in terms of intelligence for absolutely no reason, or it's all they think they've got. Introverted doesn't necessarily equal intelligent.

[Lines]

Way to miss the point.

A 27 point buy does NOT require any stat be dumped. Only a min max attitude makes that demand on a point buy.

Min max isn't a bad thing, by itself, and is in a lot of ways helpful in looking at the extreme cases of a character build.

It doesn't require any stat to be dumped, true, but it strongly incentivises it. There are almost no int saves, one class and two archetypes have abilities based on int and it only affects a small and specific set of skills which can just be taken by whoever did take good int, while 8 int doesn't have any real effect on roleplay - there is pretty much no reason to ever take improve it past 8 as a non wizard/EK/AT.

[AstralFire]

But is it really the DM's place to demand players stop dumping IN? They're not his characters. That's not to say a DM should never call for IN (Knowledge) checks just because the party dumped IN, but if only the wizard and perhaps rogue & bard are the ones who have any IN at all to make use of those Knowledge checks should not be giving the DM hissy fits.

There's a distinct difference between the DM demanding players stop dumping a stat and the DM providing minor incentive so that people who didn't dump the stat feel rewarded. It's no different than making sure to include a few traps (even if you tone down the number) for parties without the Trapfinding class feature in 3.5. I find that for most styles of play, there's a happy medium between the world/adventure adjusting to the party composition and the world/adventure being party-agnostic -- that exact point varies from party to party, but still exists.

[Sception]

Intelligence is a hugely useful stat and easy to for a DM to make important to an adventure. I think if you're having trouble with players dumping INT and not feeling like there is any benefit to taking it or penalty for not taking it, then your DM needs to reward knowledge rolls more often.

...

I think this is a DM issue. Make INT valuable. If you're ranting to the point where you're sad people are dumping INT, punish it. If you've got some one pumping INT as a secondary stat just for great knowledge, reward it. A good DM will make the players feel the benefit and the penalty of all choices them make because feeling both are fun.

This is fine as far as it goes, but it mostly just amounts to making Wizard a required class at your table. Cha is often a dump stat, but can similarly be important due to skill use, but you can have a bard or a sorcerer or a warlock or a paladin with a high cha to be good at those skills without making their character worse by lowering their key stats to raise a tertiary score.

Same with strength, the last of the commonly dumped stats. You can make it important in your campaign, and if you do, there's still several character classes that can cover it for the party with points invested in a primary stat.

Wis, Dex, and Con saves are all so common, and their other uses (perception, initiative, HP) so critical, that almost nobody would dump them, so it's not even an issue, but again, if you need someone to be good at it, there's multple classes that can do that as part of their primary or secondary stat.

Int, though? If you're not a wizard, points invested in int come at the cost of hit points, AC, initiative, the most common saves, class abilities, even attack rolls & spell DCs, which amounts to the rules telling you very VERY hard that you should dump it.


It isn't just that int saves and skill checks should be more common and more important, they should. But unless you're also upping the players' point buy pools, and introducing more int-primary classes (I'm a strong proponent of int-primary warlock), that's going to hurt.


Another suggestion, probably a better way to go, imo, is to loosen the stranglehold of the big three stats that nobody's allowed to dump for gameplay reasons - con, dex, and wis. Maybe for every save, allow a choice of two save stats (dex to react, or int to predict it coming; con to endure, or strength to power through; and honestly there are relatively few wis saves that don't make more sense as cha saves to begin with). Maybe add total Con to HP at first level, instead of con mod at every level, and adjust up the HP per class as appropriate, so that a 14 vs. an 8 con is 6 HP at 10th level, instead of 30, and give con some other things to do instead.

I don't know. As it is though, it really doesn't feel like there's enough stuff going on mechanically in this game to justify 6 total stats. Game would work better with 4, maybe even 3.

Or none, and just let players be good at the things their classes and proficiency choices say they're good at.

[AstralFire]

What is this Con, Dex, Wis stranglehold?

- I throw plenty of spellcasters at my party, and unless someone is really pumping up Wis, I find few players care to put in the effort to have that save keep up if it is not already one their class is good at. A +2 and no proficiency versus a -1 and no proficiency isn't something to sneeze at, but it's the sort of thing I don't see players who are optimization heavy in other games feeling absolutely constrained to handle.
- Often not a good idea to outright dump Dex, but you can get away with it if you're a heavy armor class or have multi'd to one. I still see casters drop it on occasion if they're the only one in a defensive party. Initiative is important, but it is not quite as important as in editions where it is simpler for a single person to ORKO an opponent.
- Con is the only one I kind of agree with, and it does relax significantly based on the type of encounters being played.

Literally the only thing that I have not seen a player dump and dump to some degree of success in this system is their primary offensive stat for their class, with priorities on other stats following on the role they want to play in the party.

[djreynolds]

If you play in the AL, and use the standard array, something is a dump stat. If you have a paladin with an 8 intelligence, for me I just call it an average intelligence and leave it. You are going to have a 10 somewhere as well.

Now if you 4d6, and get an 8 in something, yeah role-play it.

But those of us force to use the standard array, an 8 is average. And if it is killing you just make it 15/14/13/12/10/10, easy fix

[Christian]

But it does. Apes can't actually use language (http://goodreasonblog.com/2006/04/communication-language-and-apes/), in D&D terms they can't actually be proficient in any of the skills, they're incapable of being taught to use most of the tools an adventurer would use - people forget how special human intelligence really is. In previous editions this was solved by having 3-18 be the range for starting ability scores and having all animals have an intelligence of 1 or 2, in 3.5 the rules specifically stated if the intelligence was above 2 then it was by definition no longer an animal. In 5e however animals can have intelligence of so far 6 (for a real world animal) and 7 (for something that isn't a real world animal, but is still a beast) and by definition an adventurer does not have animal intelligence.

A human of less than 7 intelligence cannot function, they will be able to communicate some concepts but fundamentally be incapable of language. Given that there are some people with severe developmental disabilities who can use language, that means 7 intelligence is reserved for those who are intellectually retarded, with 8 and up being the normal human range. Again, made a lot more sense in 3.5 when you could have say 3-5 being the range for severe mental handicaps, 6-7 being subnormal but still functional and 8+ being within normal range (ie you probably won't notice much difference between 8 and 10)

The problem with that interpretation is that the base range for ability scores is 3-18, generated via 3d6. (PCs don't use that, because they're supposed to be exceptional in some way, so they blow the bell curve. But they're a tiny minority of the population.)

And that means that nearly 1/6th of the population has an INT score of 7 or less. Based on the classic definition of IQ and the standard deviation of the 3d6 bell curve, a 7 INT corresponds to an IQ around 80, listed in the original Standford-Binet evaluation as the boundary between 'low average' and 'borderline impaired or delayed'. Such individuals are certainly capable of both language and reasoning, although they may not be very good at either.

A more reasonable conclusion, especially looking at some of the myths and works of literature D&D is rooted in, is that D&D apes are smarter than real-world apes. I'd think of them along the lines of the apes that raised Tarzan in Burrough's novels ...

[Alerad]

Last year I was working on rules for the ability scores which "solve" the problem of Intelligence.

Intelligence is removed as a stat. Your knowledge based skills now use 2x your proficiency bonus instead (3x if you have Expertise)
Your characters can be as smart or as dumb as you want them to be.

Magical Aptitude is added as an ability score. Normally, most spellcasters depend on it.
Wisdom becomes Perception (mostly change of the name) - it covers that function actually.
Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks now use Cha (strength of character) as a spellcasting modifier, everyone else uses Magic.

Then I realized I had to redefine the saving throws, skills, etc. etc. It seems like the correct way, but it was a lot of work.

[Clistenes]

This is very true. The smartest (not most educated) people I know are tradesmen who are definitely not into D&D and comics. Nerds tend to think they're above the pack in terms of intelligence for absolutely no reason, or it's all they think they've got. Introverted doesn't necessarily equal intelligent.

Anyways, what does "nerd" means nowadays? It just means "somebody who really likes something that isn't a physical activity".

[oxybe]

whether you roll or have pointbuy, a barbarian is going to want to focus on the physical stats since that's what his class features point him towards (IE going into melee, abilities that work and enhance strength, likely taking damage). outside of this he does have some use for charisma through the intimidate skill and wisdom is an often affected save (and covers perception skill)

whether you roll or pointbuy the class doesn't really have any use for int, so unless you do something like roll stats down the line and keep them there or have a particular idea for a character that requires a high int to work, Int simply isn't a hard requirement for a barbarian.

This isn't a nature of pointbuy, dice rolling or min-maxing, but simply how the class is structured to work and the systems it interacts with. The class emphasizes use of certain stats more then others.

assuming you roll or point buy with whatever value you're given something like 16, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8 in a game, for your run-of-the-mill barbarian you'll likely put those stats with S/D/Co/W/I/Ch as 16/12/14/8/10/10, maybe swapping out charisma and int since they're your least generally useful ability scores. if you have a particular concept in mind, the distribution will change, but generally speaking that's what a barb stat spread will look like
------------sidebar------------------
while back in my day nerd/geek were pretty much the same thing, language being what it is has changed how the words are viewed.

"nerd" generally infers a particular sort of mix of social ineptitude and lack of athletic ability, mixed in with a predisposition for academic learning, usually on a broad (if sometimes eclectic) range of topics.

"geek" seems to have veered away from being a synonym to nerd and become more of a "knowledgeable/enthusiast" in a certain area of expertise: a computer geek, automotive geek, military geek, anime geek, hockey geek, etc....

geeks can sometimes come off as a bit socially inept like a nerd would, but that's usually coming from a place of passion on their expertise rather then a distinct lack of social ability.

[Lines]

The problem with that interpretation is that the base range for ability scores is 3-18, generated via 3d6. (PCs don't use that, because they're supposed to be exceptional in some way, so they blow the bell curve. But they're a tiny minority of the population.)

And that means that nearly 1/6th of the population has an INT score of 7 or less. Based on the classic definition of IQ and the standard deviation of the 3d6 bell curve, a 7 INT corresponds to an IQ around 80, listed in the original Standford-Binet evaluation as the boundary between 'low average' and 'borderline impaired or delayed'. Such individuals are certainly capable of both language and reasoning, although they may not be very good at either.

A more reasonable conclusion, especially looking at some of the myths and works of literature D&D is rooted in, is that D&D apes are smarter than real-world apes. I'd think of them along the lines of the apes that raised Tarzan in Burrough's novels ...

No, the actual reasonable conclusion is that it doesn't make sense because 5e deliberately sacrificed a fair amount of verisimilitude for simplicity. I understand why that made that trade-off, I don't understand why people keep pretending they didn't - in 3.5 the range was 3-18 and the range of intelligence an animal could have was 1-2, if it was 3 or more then it was by definition not an animal. That made sense, it does not in 5e.

[Cybren]

No, the actual reasonable conclusion is that it doesn't make sense because 5e deliberately sacrificed a fair amount of verisimilitude for simplicity. I understand why that made that trade-off, I don't understand why people keep pretending they didn't - in 3.5 the range was 3-18 and the range of intelligence an animal could have was 1-2, if it was 3 or more then it was by definition not an animal. That made sense, it does not in 5e.

The default ability score generation method is 4d6b3.
So, it is possible that people have int <8. There are no rules forbidding it. And there are no rules about what it means.
So reading int <8 as non-sapient is ridiculous. Because we know that not to be the case already.

[Lines]

The default ability score generation method is 4d6b3.
So, it is possible that people have int <8. There are no rules forbidding it. And there are no rules about what it means.
So reading int <8 as non-sapient is ridiculous. Because we know that not to be the case already.

But we do know it's the case, apes have int of 6 and 7. Yes, that's mutually contradictory with the stats a PC can have, and that's because they didn't try to make it make sense - 5e is full of things that don't really make sense, but are there for simplicity's sake.

[Cybren]

Right, and since pcs can have stats of<8 we know that for pcs an int of <8 doesn't imply non-sapience. You've selected a position for no reason other than to argue it. It's senseless

[Lines]

Right, and since pcs can have stats of<8 we know that for pcs an int of <8 doesn't imply non-sapience. You've selected a position for no reason other than to argue it. It's senseless

But it does imply non-sapience, since we see that an int of 6 is animal intelligence.

[hymer]

But it does imply non-sapience, since we see that an int of 6 is animal intelligence.

Gargoyles have int 6 and speak Terran. They seem pretty sapient.

[Arkhios]

But it does imply non-sapience, since we see that an int of 6 is animal intelligence.

No it doesn't. A child could have intelligence 3 to 6. Does that make a child non-sapient?

Low intelligence doesn't imply one's level of sapience. It implies how complex concepts one can comprehend. Someone with an intelligence of 6 more likely has a child's mindset. Not a cow's or dog's.

[Lines]

Gargoyles have int 6 and speak Terran. They seem pretty sapient.

My entire point here things like that and an ape having int 6 are mutually contradictory, and that 5e does not care because it was happy to do that to simplify things. None of this makes sense, because none of this is supposed to.

[hymer]

My entire point here things like that and an ape having int 6 are mutually contradictory, and that 5e does not care because it was happy to do that to simplify things. None of this makes sense, because none of this is supposed to.

Or you could conclude that sapience was not meant to correspond to a specific threshold of Int.

[Lines]

Or you could conclude that sapience was not meant to correspond to a specific threshold of Int.

Why would include sapience at all? We can use it to measure abilities - we know an ape cannot learn languages, use complex tools or do any number of things that a human of sub normal intelligence can do. That an ape has an int of 6 makes no sense, but that's ok - multiple disadvantages stacking makes no sense either, we sacrifice logic for simplicity here at fifth edition.

[Shining Wrath]

But we do know it's the case, apes have int of 6 and 7. Yes, that's mutually contradictory with the stats a PC can have, and that's because they didn't try to make it make sense - 5e is full of things that don't really make sense, but are there for simplicity's sake.

But the baboon (RW specific ape) has Int = 4. For fantasy purposes they've given us what used to be called the Carnivorous Ape - a creature with near-human cunning in bestial form. A Yeti has Int = 8; the Giant Ape is more like a Yeti than a gorilla. Note also that the (Giant) Ape can employ rocks as effective missile weapons, a behavior not seen in RW creatures; when they fight, they do it melee style. So don't read the MM Ape as being intended to be gorilla or chimp intellect.

And Yoko the gorilla famously had a vocabulary of ~1000 English words.

Anyway, if your PC has Int=8, it's harder for you to remember things you read or hear; even given an education by the local druid or priest or teacher, you will retain less of that information than Int=10, who retains less than Int=12. That's why higher intelligence enables you to recall things about Arcana, History, Nature, and / or Religion. If the DM is not making you use these skills very often perhaps they ought to.

I use the knowledge skills to identify a creature. You want to know that's a Bone Devil? Roll your religion check.

[Arkhios]

we sacrifice logic for simplicity here at fifth edition.

If one would have stated this in the first place, all of this inane arguing would have never happened.

5e is by definition a simplified system. People arguing about relations between intelligence and sapience are making the game seem more complicated than it is. Accept the fact that creatures in Monster Manual or the appendix in PHB are NOT equal to real world standards, nor are they meant to be.

[hymer]

Why would include sapience at all? We can use it to measure abilities - we know an ape cannot learn languages, use complex tools or do any number of things that a human of sub normal intelligence can do. That an ape has an int of 6 makes no sense, but that's ok - multiple disadvantages stacking makes no sense either, we sacrifice logic for simplicity here at fifth edition.

I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing when we say 'sapience' or 'intelligence', which makes conversation very difficult. I don't think it is at all possible to logically and consistently rate all beings' intelligence on one curve that describes their capacity well. And for good reasons the game doesn't try. The Int score isn't meant to correspond to the ability to learn languages or use complex tools (both human-made things, so obviously better suited to humans). You can tell it isn't because it says so, and because it doesn't affect those things. It is meant to show how good a memory a creature has, and how well it reasons This is important because it helps the DM determine how the creature will behave, and it is mechanically important because it shows how likely the creature is to be fooled by an illusion.

[JumboWheat01]

I always use the base array (I've done a few mock rolls... gods, those were horrible totals...) and I don't see how an 8 is really much of a dump anyway. The number's not that important, it's the modifier we really care about. And a -1 isn't all that much of a hindrance, especially if you don't need the stat. Even a barbarian who takes his -1 on CHA can still be a good Intimidate user, especially since the PHB clearly says one could call for a STR Intimidate check, and let me tell you, that +7 on an Intimidate check is a lot better than anything else you could've gotten with CHA.

You a big cleric in solid heavy armor? That -1 from your DEX might make you start attacking a little slower because your Initiative is lower (very slightly lower) but you were always going to be slower than your friendly rogues or especially someone who's class features let them add some proficiency to their Initiative checks.

INT has even less going for it than others. Only one class truly needs it, the Wizard. Sure, you need some for an Arcane Trickster, but I have seen plenty of build ideas for an Eldritch Knight where you can take that -1 INT and actually have a very powerful character. When a character style the developers thought required INT can still be played with the very slight penalty with absolutely no problems, it shows how little the penalty actually affects someone. Heck, maybe someone should draft up a 0 or -1 Wizard, fill them up with spells that don't require saving throws, and see of useful a utility or defensive character you have.


Should you try to make stats you feel that are being ignored "more fun?" Sure, anything that can make a game more interesting is a good idea. Should you do it by forcing a certain play style on the players? No. The moment you take character control away from the players is the same moment they'll probably realize that they don't want to play anymore.

[Aasimar]

The farming industry would like to have a word with you on what it takes to run a farm.
It really isn't respected.

Well, actual efficient farming takes intelligence, wisdom, training and experience.

Medieval subsistence farming did take some training and experience, and intelligence and wisdom helped, but not everyone did it very well.

[Douche]

What is intelligence? What is wisdom?

According to some stuff I just googled, intelligence is the speed at which you absorb & retain new information. Wisdom is applying knowledge that may not be directly applicable in a variety of situations.

So really, high int characters shouldn't be able to solve problems at the drop of a dime unless they have high wisdom too.

Or we could just get over it and play the game, cuz this discussion belongs in a philosophy class.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you play in the AL, and use the standard array,
Is that a requirement, or can you use 27 point buy in AL?

[Sitri]

My entire point here things like that and an ape having int 6 are mutually contradictory, and that 5e does not care because it was happy to do that to simplify things. None of this makes sense, because none of this is supposed to.

Chewbacca FTW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14)

[gfishfunk]

I don't think there's much noticeable difference between an 8 Int (slightly below average), a 10 (average), and a 12 (slightly above average), honestly. Certainly nothing you'd notice in normal conversation.

I notice it all the time around here with folks.

Ahhh------Zing!

[KorvinStarmast]

Or we could just get over it and play the game, cuz this discussion belongs in a philosophy class. The alignment "discussions aka rants" need your participation. :smallbiggrin:

[Douche]

The alignment "discussions aka rants" need your participation. :smallbiggrin:

I have come back to this topic after some hours and I apologize for my trivializing of your discussion.

To be fair, I play an 8 int half-orc barbarian and I do the whole "idiot" character thing. I make rash decisions, talk like a fool, only speak in third person, easily fall for tricks even when I personally know it will result badly. But I also gave him 12 wisdom so when I make battle tactics it makes sense, instead of me stupidly charging into 20 enemies with 2 hit points.

[Vogonjeltz]

This is why I hate playing with a low Int (and forcing myself to dump it). I tend to think of (what I think) cleaver solutions to problems. But it doesn't make sense for my character to suggest them sometimes.

I was overjoyed when my lowest roll was a 12 once. It meant that I could act somewhat smart with my barbarian.

There are other ways to portray low Intelligence (i.e. Forgetfulness), but I'd say it's mostly going to come into play when your character tries to remember something, or puzzle something out as a check (i.e. Intelligence check to figure out the spring mechanism on this lock; or to open the cage door).

A clever DM might even describe things differently to the characters, based on who is asking and what their mental ability scores are.

i.e. A wisdom character notices more things, and a high intelligence character would automatically read more into things.

A low int/Wis character sees a fortress in the distance. A high wis character notices there's a small hole in the base through which an enterprising party might make an approach, a high int character sees the fortress is adjacent to a stream and surmises that there's probably an underground entrance through which water is acquired (even if they don't see the actual entrance that the higher wisdom character spotted).

Of course, this might also be done just by their passive Intelligence (Investigation) and Wisdom (Perception) scores. /shrug.