Starting with INT 12 WIS 12

[Pinjata]

Hey playground,

I have two players in my group that no matter the stats always play smart, cunning, sensible character and pretty much wreck any challenge I give them. Which I do not mind, if they often did not play INT 8 WIS 16 or WIS 8 INT 16 characters. ("It's my WIS/INT, see? I AM SMART! he he")

Anyhow, without any bad blood between us, I got "mad" regarding their constant sucess and said "I want you guys to have INT and WIS at least 12. If its point buy, these points are already deducted for these bonuses. You can upgrade them but not go below this. Cacling like two chesiree cats they agreed, but in despite of this I wonder what implications this might have for the 5e system? If any.

Also, as far as I know, one will play a rogue and other a wizard.

thanks

[JellyPooga]

Implications? That you'll have two players on your hands with at least a bonus, as opposed to a penalty, against Int and Wis Save effects. That's all, really.

Now, some players might take offence at this kind of draconian enforcement of character vs. player but I (and it seems your players are too) am totally cool with it, largely because I know that I find it hard to "dumb-down" and I enjoy playing smart characters; I almost never play characters with Int/Wis below 12 anyway.

[Angelmaker]

Counterquestion: WHAT challenges in your mind should NOT be tackled by a person of 8 int ( which is average intelligence )?

If you feel that a challenge should be harder for the non brainiacs, setting up int based skill checks in that challenge could help. Otherwise I really don't think that 8 intelligence means "hey, there is an ogre. Do not use tactics to lure him in an ambush, let's just charge and get eaten!"

[Pinjata]

Counterquestion: WHAT challenges in your mind should NOT be tackled by a person of 8 int ( which is average intelligence )?

If you feel that a challenge should be harder for the non brainiacs, setting up int based skill checks in that challenge could help. Otherwise I really don't think that 8 intelligence means "hey, there is an ogre. Do not use tactics to lure him in an ambush, let's just charge and get eaten!"

10 is average. 8 is orc-level intelligence.

@JellyPooga
Yeah, you totally get it. :)

[Lines]

10 is average. 8 is orc-level intelligence.

@JellyPooga
Yeah, you totally get it. :)

No, orcs have less than 8. 8-12 is within the range of the very average human, someone with int 8 and someone with int 12 would be close to indistinguishable in terms of intelligence unless you figured out a way to quantitatively measure it and did a bunch of tests - and even then, if it's an opposed int check the int 12 character will win less than 60% of the time.

What I'm saying here is that intelligence is a dump stat which nobody except a wizard, eldritch knight or arcane trickster wants any of. It's absolutely useless, and you're punishing players for being creative by forcing them to take a crap stat. If you really must do so, at least homebrew some actual benefits to being intelligent.

[Sir cryosin]

Power gamer alert wee woo wee woo wee woo.

[Lines]

Power gamer alert wee woo wee woo wee woo.

Right, having your character good at what you want your character to be good at doesn't matter. That's why you keep rolling 8 charisma sorcerers, right?

[Sir cryosin]

Right, having your character good at what you want your character to be good at doesn't matter. That's why you keep rolling 8 charisma sorcerers, right?

We just had a low charisma sorcerer he did pretty well in battle and was the party face his charisma was 14.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I don't think you should come down too hard on your players. They might have played under DMs who relied on puzzles and riddles that were explicitly designed to challenge the players rather than their characters, or they might just not like roleplaying very much. Perhaps a clearer distinction between the meanings of Int and Wis is needed... I would say that formulating plans, solving problems and imagining future scenarios falls squarely under Int and a character with 8 Int (which is well below average, for the record*) should be noticeably poor at doing those things. Wis is about instinct, intuition, senses and mental fortitude, none of which really matter when you're making plans.

*By my understanding, a modern kid with an Int of 7 or lower would be getting SEN help in school, so 8 is only marginally above that. It's the kids at the bottom of a regular class. Equally, Int 12 is pretty high. Top of the class in most schools.

[Lines]

I don't think you should come down too hard on your players. They might have played under DMs who relied on puzzles and riddles that were explicitly designed to challenge the players rather than their characters, or they might just not like roleplaying very much. Perhaps a clearer distinction between the meanings of Int and Wis is needed... I would say that formulating plans, solving problems and imagining future scenarios falls squarely under Int and a character with 8 Int (which is well below average, for the record*) should be noticeably poor at doing those things. Wis is about instinct, intuition, senses and mental fortitude, none of which really matter when you're making plans.

*By my understanding, a modern kid with an Int of 7 or lower would be getting SEN help in school, so 8 is only marginally above that. It's the kids at the bottom of a regular class. Equally, Int 12 is pretty high. Top of the class in most schools.

Assuming a range of 3d6 for humans, int 8-9 (literally indistinguishable for D&D, an int 8 and int 9 character have no differences in ability) is the 16-37.5% range. So a little over 20% of humans have int 8 or 9, which means they will probably tend towards the lower end of most classes but will be unlikely to need extra help.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Assuming a range of 3d6 for humans, int 8-9 (literally indistinguishable for D&D, an int 8 and int 9 character have no differences in ability) is the 16-37.5% range. So a little over 20% of humans have int 8 or 9, which means they will probably tend towards the lower end of most classes but will be unlikely to need extra help.

...that's pretty much exactly what I said.

Assuming 3d6, the Int*10=IQ approximation holds up pretty well.

[Once a Fool]

I think a less kludgy way to handle this problem (if you want to call it that), would be to actually make Intelligence matter.

This can be done without house-ruling simply by tailoring the information gleaned through Intelligence checks to the character doing the checking--a cleric using a history check knows different things than a rogue with a history check. Doing this will incentivize passing these checks for everyone (especially if you also limit them to one roll per character--or, better yet--simply feed them information based on passive scores), which, in turn, incentivizes higher Intelligence scores without enforcing them.

And, as an added bonus, you'll be creating a lot more depth for your campaign.

[Lines]

...that's pretty much exactly what I said.

Assuming 3d6, the Int*10=IQ approximation holds up pretty well.

Thing is, that's not the bottom. The total of children attending special schools or receiving added help for a learning disability is around 3%, which if you assume children of int 3 are so developmentally disabled they cannot attend either matches up very closely to the int 4/5 population (2.8%). So the int 6/7 children are the ones at the bottom of a regular class, the 8/9 children are (this is all subject to some variance, children who study hard will always end up in the upper half of the class) on average probably in the lower half, but they aren't the bottom.

[pwykersotz]

I was introduced to D&D through heavy simulationism, so I get where you're coming from. I eventually learned to decouple stats from player decisions though. I fluff it as stats being the strength of their mind/personality (resisting negative effects, coercing others, etc) and not the full capability of them.

In my opinion, if you reach an area you truly want the stat to matter in, it should probably be a check, in which case their penalties are already baked in for you. Trying to straitjacket role-play through stats is frustrating for both the player and the GM, mostly because it's so nebulous. I second the above advice with making the stats matter more in your games. That will naturally encourage stat allocation.

[Tarvil]

You know, difference in rolls between INT 8 and INT 20. is like... 30%? It's not big deal.

Problem is, your players play same character each time, regardless of their stats. It's problem with their acting skils, not with your riddles.

[Madbox]

Since they seem to be playing with their own actual intelligence, as opposed to their characters, it should have little to no effect. Extensively roleplaying intelligence always seemed silly to me, anyway. How does an average person roleplay the wizard with 16+ INT? Or lower themselves to the level of the 8 INT fighter? It is difficult to come up with a good idea and then ignore it. The only way I can think of handling this sort of thing is that if someone whose character is low INT has a good idea, they OOC suggest it to someone who plays a high INT character, who then presents it in character as their idea. Which is the same net result as if the low INT person had suggested it in character.

[JNAProductions]

Remember-8 Intelligence isn't stupid. It's just a little slow on the uptake. Maybe they don't quite get jokes, maybe they take an extra couple seconds to figure something out, but it's not like they're drooling morons.

Likewise, 8 Wisdom isn't a buffoon. They might be a little brash or reckless, maybe they lack some common sense, but they understand the world pretty well. They just make decisions a little worse than the average person.

[Thrudd]

It is not reasonable to expect players to pretend that they can't figure something out, or to make poorer decisions with their characters that might have bad results (like using poor battle tactics). It is a game about solving things using the tools your character has. If you want to have the stats matter, include more saving throws and ability checks against int or wisdom. But you can't dictate how they should play, that isn't what the numbers are for.

Alternatively, if you want the game to be about acting, that's ok. You need to make clear that this is the case, and figure out a way to reward the players for good acting, rather than for good problem solving. If they have a choice between coming up with a clever plan and pretending to be stupid (because their character is supposed to be), the better choice should be pretending. Of course, doing this requires changing very basic elements of the game. It really wouldn't be D&D.

[PoeticDwarf]

We just had a low charisma sorcerer he did pretty well in battle and was the party face his charisma was 14.

14. Isn't. Low.

[Socratov]

Power gamer alert wee woo wee woo wee woo.


We just had a low charisma sorcerer he did pretty well in battle and was the party face his charisma was 14.

Hi there Sir cryosin, have you heard of the Stormwind Fallacy? (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.nl/2011/12/stormwind-fallacy.html)

Additionally, to paraphrase EnderDwarf, 14 isn't exactly a low score, low level the difference prom a max point buy is only 1, and in higher levels it might differ as much as 3 for the DC on the sorc's spells. Plus, the dice could work out well and create a lot of success that way. Low would be a 0 or lower mod to your main stat. In that case it would be an actual hindrance since it would make success a lot harder...

[Talamare]

I really think you need to calm down
The system already has a mechanic in play to reduce successes because of 1 person

It's called Multiple Successes, so if you feel that because of these 2 people successfully covering the main 2 Ability score checks is 'breaking' your game. Then just implement that you need 2 or 3 successes to pass the challenge. Thus minimizing the effects these 2 players have. Sure they will probably still be 1 guaranteed success, but the other guy is basically a failure. So, it will require the rest of the squad to succeed.

[Arkhios]

with 3d6 variation in each stat, average of that roll is 10.5. Ergo, average intelligence is 10-11. Not 8-12.

I, for one, would at least try to make it clear for the players that you expect your player's characters to behave accordingly to their stats. Whatever it means in the end. Like Ninja_Prawn stated earlier (note: not word-by-word), Intelligence (in D&D, perhaps not in IRL) measures the character’s logical thinking and reasoning, while Wisdom measures the character’s intuition and common sense (at least that's how I would explain it).

[JNAProductions]

57% of people are in the 8-12, as opposed to 25% in the 10-11 range. So only a minority are in 10-11. A majority are in 8-12 on 3d6.

[Arkhios]

57% of people are in the 8-12, as opposed to 25% in the 10-11 range. So only a minority are in 10-11. A majority are in 8-12 on 3d6.

Where do you base that 57% as 8 to 12?

[JNAProductions]

Check Anydice. That'll math you.

Also, it's a bell curve.

[Corran]

Hey playground,

I have two players in my group that no matter the stats always play smart, cunning, sensible character and pretty much wreck any challenge I give them. Which I do not mind, if they often did not play INT 8 WIS 16 or WIS 8 INT 16 characters. ("It's my WIS/INT, see? I AM SMART! he he")

Anyhow, without any bad blood between us, I got "mad" regarding their constant sucess and said "I want you guys to have INT and WIS at least 12. If its point buy, these points are already deducted for these bonuses. You can upgrade them but not go below this. Cacling like two chesiree cats they agreed, but in despite of this I wonder what implications this might have for the 5e system? If any.

Also, as far as I know, one will play a rogue and other a wizard.

thanks
Everything below is just suggestions and some criticism and are not meant as a personal attack or anything like that.

Why dont you let your players free to roleplay their characters however they like?

Following your train of thought, a person with average intelligence in real life should not even touch a high int wizard, or some poor newbie who just started playing and roleplaying is not his strong suit should definitely stay away from any high cha build and cha based skills.

Sure, you can think that there can be silliness if the person playing the 5 int barbarian solves all the riddles, but it is your job along with the player to find an imaginative way for that to happen, that makes sense in the game world, should ofc the player decide to have his character find the solution. Anyway, my point is, that roleplaying your attributes is more tricky than it sounds, and if applied with harsh discipline, it can lead to no good.

My advice is to let your players roleplay their characters however they feel like their characters would act, no matter how silly you might find it. That is why there is that shameless inspiration mechanic, so that DMs can reward the roleplaying they deem good. If they are happy with it, and ofc if it is not causing any problems, it's all good. Just get over the idea that stats are the boundaries of roleplaying. If you were seeking a big dose of realism, why do you even play the d20 system?

[Arkhios]

Check Anydice. That'll math you.

Also, it's a bell curve.

That's semantics. The absolute majority is at 10 to 11, with both at the highest individual percentage of 12.5% (total at 25%, as you said). However, I wouldn't honestly claim that a majority included a larger sampling of the bell curve. Majority is where the biggest percentages land on individual level. And that's 12.5%.

[JNAProductions]

That's semantics. The absolute majority is at 10 to 11, with both at the highest individual percentage of 12.5% (total at 25%, as you said). However, I wouldn't honestly claim that a majority included a larger sampling of the bell curve. Majority is where the biggest percentages land on individual level. And that's 12.5%.

That's, uh... Not how majority works. Majority is greater than 50%. 10 and 11 are the mode, not the majority.

[Crusadr]

Getting off the point of the thread here guys, that being said maybe it's just me thinking this way from older editions but I do seem to recall that 9-10 was what was considered the average stat, and that had nothing to do with any mathematical formula it was simply just stated that was the relevant numbers for an average person.

So much overthinking, or arguing for the fun of it going on. You can be that literal about the word average or you could just look at the modifiers and go "oh 8 has a negative modifier, that must be below average" etc.

[Once a Fool]

Getting off the point of the thread here guys, that being said maybe it's just me thinking this way from older editions but I do seem to recall that 9-10 was what was considered the average stat, and that had nothing to do with any mathematical formula it was simply just stated that was the relevant numbers for an average person.

So much overthinking, or arguing for the fun of it going on. You can be that literal about the word average or you could just look at the modifiers and go "oh 8 has a negative modifier, that must be below average" etc.

In Basic, 9-12 was the range for which there were neither bonuses, nor penalties. And it was very much based on a mathematical formula (specifically, the 3d6 bell-curve).

There were four +/-0 numbers, three +1 numbers, three -1 numbers, two +2 numbers, two -2 numbers, one +3 number, and one -3 number. The numbers closer to the center, of course, also had more possible combinations and the extremes each only had one.

[Laserlight]

Drifting away from the math part and back to OP's point--

a) I get where you're coming from, but the point of the game is not "excellent roleplaying veracity" but rather "having fun". Don't worry about it. Among other things, if I had INT16 and WIS12, I wouldn't be personally crawling into tunnels where monsters with sharp pointy teeth wait for the opportunity to inflict grievous bodily harm on my very own favorite epidermis. If you can't explain why the scrawny wizard wants to go dungeoneering, then why fuss over explaining why the orc barbarian is more cunning than he seems?

b) If the party has a character with high INT, just assume the results from the "smart player/dumb character" guys are actually being produced by your high INT guy.

c) If INT8 player characters can come up with cunning plans, I guess that means INT8 orcs can too, right?

[Talamare]

b) If the party has a character with high INT, just assume the results from the "smart player/dumb character" guys are actually being produced by your high INT guy.

c) If INT8 player characters can come up with cunning plans, I guess that means INT8 orcs can too, right?

I think he said he has 2 power players, one who went all Int and one who went all Wis (and 8 in the mirror)
and those 2 players are handling like 90% of checks.

[Lines]

I think he said he has 2 power players, one who went all Int and one who went all Wis (and 8 in the mirror)
and those 2 players are handling like 90% of checks.

Seems like a pretty good way of doing things. Knowledge checks aren't like stealth or such, only one person has to be successful for everyone to benefit, splitting it up so only one character has to take the otherwise useless int stat is a good idea.

[Thrudd]

I don't think this is about players making ability checks. That's the problem. It is about the DM feeling like the players are playing too intelligently for the ability scores they have, so he wants to require them to have characters with higher mental stats in the future. If the DM would incorporate more saving throws and ability checks, it might help make those ability scores more relevant without expecting the players to "play dumb".

If you want the game to be about character acting more than problem solving and tactics, then mechanics like the inspiration rule for flaws and bonds need to be expanded, and xp awarded not for overcoming problems but for accurately portraying a character's flaws and difficulties. Winning the fight or finding the treasure should be less rewarding than creating a dramatic scene. In D&D, this generally isn't the case.

[Flashy]

What confuses me about this complaint is that both players actually do still have at least one high mental score. Would you demand a great weapon fighter start with 12 str/12 dex just because you think it's silly to play a martial who's incredibly strong but a little bit clumsy?

[Friv]

10 is average. 8 is orc-level intelligence.

I was actually curious about where Int fell these days, so I went looking.

Orcs are now Intelligence 7 (-2) on average, as are gnolls.
The 8-9 range is where bugbears, thri-kreen, and yeti hang out.
Going lower, 4-5 seems to be the domain of the "really dumb" folk - ogres are Int 5, as are the hezrou, who are noted as weak-willed and easy to convince to die for the glory of their demon lords.

So generally speaking, Intelligence 8 is really just anyone who struggles a bit when they're trying to learn complicated things. If you're going straight to "dumb jock stereotype" that's probably Int 7, whereas if you're going with "has trouble with a lot of basic concepts" that's Int 4-5.

(I do have a bit of a pet peeve with people playing Int 8-9 characters as having 50-word vocabularies, being confused by things like doors and pants, and causing endless chaos out of a supposed lack of understanding whenever it would be "funny".)

[Talamare]

(I do have a bit of a pet peeve with people playing Int 8-9 characters as having 50-word vocabularies, being confused by things like doors and pants, and causing endless chaos out of a supposed lack of understanding whenever it would be "funny".)

Not only do I hate this, but I hate even more people who look at my 8 int character and asks me why I'm not acting like a moron like the other 8 int character

[djreynolds]

Just rework the standard array, 15/14/13/12/12/10.

Good enough. There you go.

But do not take away from players, just give.

12 intelligence or wisdom is fine, still not able to multiclass with it so it will take investment on their part.

And now we do not have to worry about my -1 ability modifier doesn't allow my autonomic nervous system to work properly and I cannot breathe.