A discussion on Intelligence

[ZenBear]

What can it be used for in-game? How can it be leveraged to your advantage? How do you use the INT skills? Knowledge skills like Arcana, Religion, History etc can give you information like resistances and damage type. How can Investigate be used? I think of it as deductive skill. Sherlock Holms is a Rogue with Expertise in Investigate and Perception. Could a balanced homebrew class have features that key off Investigate or other INT skills to garner mechanical bonuses/Advantage?

Etcetera.

[Slipperychicken]

In theory? It can be used for just about anything and everything. Know anything, understand anything. Be a detective, a biologist, a smith, a polymath, a general, a demonologist... Knowledge is power, and its usefulness is limited only by your creativity. As a mighty strategist once said 'If you know yourself and know your enemy, then in a hundred battles you shall never lose a single one'.


In practice? It's a roundabout way to beg your DM for hints. After about the second session of this, he'll get sick of giving you hints and start declaring that you couldn't possibly know. You'll find yourself less than a day's journey from your PC's hometown, and your DM will tell you with a straight face that your character couldn't possibly guess what the animals in this forest are called, no matter how high he rolled. I say this as a player who routinely experiences this first hand, not as a DM.

[Tanarii]

Any time the DM determines you're trying to do something that needs a resolution roll, and involves drawing on logic, education, memory or deductive reasoning. That's what the PHB says.

The PHB gives a few examples that you can extrapolate from. Check them out. Of the given examples, only one is about recalling lore, although that's partially because the lore-type skills already cover plenty of that. IMO you can summarize it as most things that require quick thinking, figuring things out, a good memory, or some combination thereof.

Investigation is the big Int skill though. It's the 'figuring things out from small bits of information' skill, and covers most deductive reasoning.

Personally I don't like 'remember a tidbit' type Int checks very much. If it's important to remember under pressure, yeah, a resolution check might be needed. But I do understand why it gets used a lot. It's used as a placeholder for whether or not a character actually knows that knowledge or never learned it, not whether they can remember it.

[djreynolds]

Let's say a cop is a fighter. He pulls you over in your car. He looks at you and suspects something more than just your speeding. He is keying off of wisdom, perception and insight, things he's been trained to see and this cues him to now investigate more and use his brain, his conscious thought

So Sherlock Holmes, has a high intelligence and wisdom. Wisdom being more subconscious. He knows there is a problem and now must use his intelligence to investigate it.

Perception just tells you there is a problem, investigation and intelligence tells you what the problem actually is.

Wisdom is instinct and training, IMO, training is something that gets drilled into you and becomes almost subconscious.

Investigation is looking for something specific.

That cop may just have to call in a another officer who is better at investigation and piecing together clues.

Perception tells you something is wrong about the orcs, investigation or an intelligence check may tell you it is an illusion.

[Azedenkae]

In my current game investigation was like the most useful skill of everything. Like legit it saved us so many times and gave us so much info.

Deception and persuasion was also used.

[Corran]

What can it be used for in-game? How can it be leveraged to your advantage? How do you use the INT skills? Knowledge skills like Arcana, Religion, History etc can give you information like resistances and damage type. How can Investigate be used? I think of it as deductive skill. Sherlock Holms is a Rogue with Expertise in Investigate and Perception. Could a balanced homebrew class have features that key off Investigate or other INT skills to garner mechanical bonuses/Advantage?

Etcetera.
As physical combat goes, the bladesinger uses his intelliegence enough, through bladesong and song of victory. Adding your intelligence modifier to AC, damage and concentration checks, always stroke me a bit like how Sherlock Holmes uses his intelligence to his advantage, when figthing, in the relevant movies.

[Lycanthrope13]

In theory, a high enough INT will allow you to fake your way through almost anything.

You might not be good at sensing people's motivations, but if you know about certain biological responses like blushing, perspiration, pupil response, etc, then you could probably catch someone in a lie.

Even if you don't speak a given language, if you know that it's related to a language that you do speak, you should be able to understand or infer fragments of a conversation.

Real life example: I have successfully picked a lock before. It wasn't because I had extensive training or practice, but I know the basic principle of the mechanism. Armed with that knowledge, I just kind of fiddled with it, trying to get the tumblers to move, until it clicked open.

INT is the fake it till you make it stat.

And remember, every situation can be resolved with creative application of Animal Husbandry.

[Captbrannigan]

In theory, a high enough INT will allow you to fake your way through almost anything.

You might not be good at sensing people's motivations, but if you know about certain biological responses like blushing, perspiration, pupil response, etc, then you could probably catch someone in a lie.

You need Wisdom for perception checks. Just because you know what to look for, doesn't mean you can can focus when you need to or that you can concentrate on both the content of the discussion and the subtle clues of deception.

[BurgerBeast]

Intelligence is rightly one of the most controversial stats in D&D. As someone who has (in my own personal time) spent a lot of time exploring the differences between sensation, perception, cognition, memory, knowledge, experience, etc., (particularly interested in logic, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning as explained by Karl Popper to really just be an illusion created by deductive reasoning under restrictions) and is a professional teacher, thereby exposed to discussions professionally on the differences between critical thinking, creativity, and achievement, I have come to some personal conclusions about how Intelligence ought to be used in role-playing games generally, and in D&D particularly. I should say from the start that specifically in the context in D&D, Angry GM is probably the person who has had the most influence on my thinking about this, so much of what I say is probably attributable to him, but the errors are most likely my own.

Because RPGs are fundamentally about assuming the role of another being, it follows that the player must be able to make the decisions that are important to the character. So any arguments to the effect of "can I roll to see if my character would know what to do?" should generally be straight out ignored (although there are potential exceptions). Because if superior-intelligence characters are viewed as characters who would probably do better on auto-pilot, then it makes no sense to role-play them at all. You're essentially always ruining it for them.

There's an escape hatch though, and that is when we bring in creativity and critical thinking. There's no good justification (until you get very deep into the matter) for saying that highly intelligent people are necessarily more creative or more critical, and even if there were, it breaks down when you look at specific cases anyway, because intelligence isn't that kind of thing. This provides a convenient license to limit the Intelligence rolls and let creative solutions come from players instead of characters.

So for me personally, I try to limit intelligence that deal with intelligence in the traditional sense as passive checks. Intelligence 3 makes you capable of language, intelligence 6 makes you capable of understanding and following directions, and intelligence 9 makes you capable of higher order thought such as simple arithmetic, or whatever, as an example.

I try to let the Intelligence stat serve more as an indicator of arcane potential in-game. I know that this will probably be controversial, but to me the very existence of Intelligence as an ability score is already controversial, and since the majority of its function in D&D deals with spells, I try to keep it in that sphere.

So I don't like the old "roll to see if you know" technique. I think it's better to just have thresholds. If you're intelligence is 12 (and it makes sense in context), you know this much, etc. I also don't like the "roll to see if my character can figure it out for me" mentality.

If I were to really make an honest effort to make intelligence scores matter in my games, then I might alter descriptions based on character intelligence, but at the end of the day it's probably more effort than it's worth.

[Regitnui]

Intelligence, wisdom and charisma share a similar relationship to the three physical stats. Intelligence is raw power, except mental where strength is physical. Wisdom shares space with dexterity; both being the application of said power; a high wisdom character can apply brainpower to reality much like a dexterous monk can apply their relative strength to flip a person twice their size. Charisma and constitution both measure fortitude. A high charisma character has a powerful personality, like high constitution makes you practically physically invulnerable.


As physical combat goes, the bladesinger uses his intelliegence enough, through bladesong and song of victory. Adding your intelligence modifier to AC, damage and concentration checks, always stroke me a bit like how Sherlock Holmes uses his intelligence to his advantage, when figthing, in the relevant movies.

The scene where Robert Downey Jr's Holmes is boxing comes to mind. He uses his intelligence to predict the most likely reactions of his opponent to certain moves about four or five steps in advance. If I recall correctly;

H: Throw handkerchief
O: Wave it away
H: Punch to nose
O: Wild haymaker
H: Dodge, box ears
O: Swing
H: Body shot
O: Break nose.

That's possibly what the bladesinger does.

[Captbrannigan]

Intelligence, wisdom and charisma share a similar relationship to the three physical stats. Intelligence is raw power, except mental where strength is physical. Wisdom shares space with dexterity; both being the application of said power; a high wisdom character can apply brainpower to reality much like a dexterous monk can apply their relative strength to flip a person twice their size. Charisma and constitution both measure fortitude. A high charisma character has a powerful personality, like high constitution makes you practically physically invulnerable.

This is quite possibly one of the best descriptions I've heard of mental stats.



The scene where Robert Downey Jr's Holmes is boxing comes to mind. He uses his intelligence to predict the most likely reactions of his opponent to certain moves about four or five steps in advance. If I recall correctly;

H: Throw handkerchief
O: Wave it away
H: Punch to nose
O: Wild haymaker
H: Dodge, box ears
O: Swing
H: Body shot
O: Break nose.

That's possibly what the bladesinger does.

I absolutely hated the idea of both "being so smart you have faster reflexes" and the premise that a stuffy aristocrat like Sherlock Holmes would frequent Irish fight clubs. When he uses quick thinking to solve traps is one thing, but it blew my suspension of disbelief completely out of the water that he could play fisticuffs-chess.

[BurgerBeast]

Intelligence, wisdom and charisma share a similar relationship to the three physical stats. Intelligence is raw power, except mental where strength is physical. Wisdom shares space with dexterity; both being the application of said power; a high wisdom character can apply brainpower to reality much like a dexterous monk can apply their relative strength to flip a person twice their size. Charisma and constitution both measure fortitude. A high charisma character has a powerful personality, like high constitution makes you practically physically invulnerable.

It's interesting to me that yo say this because I have considered this parallel as well but came to different conclusions. Mine were:

Str=Cha - physical/mental force exertion, or ability to overcome others

Dex=Int - physical/mental mastery, or ability to use subtlety and nuance

Con=Wis - physical/mental reserve power, or ability to sustain damage without trauma

I'm not saying mine's any better, just interesting that we came to different conclusions.

[edit: I also took the relationship to say something about the classes: warrior types tend to be strong and charismatic, roguish types tend to be dextrous and intelligent, and mystical types tend to be healthy and wise]

[Regitnui]

It's interesting to me that yo say this because I have considered this parallel as well but came to different conclusions. Mine were:

Str=Cha - physical/mental force exertion, or ability to overcome others

Dex=Int - physical/mental mastery, or ability to use subtlety and nuance

Con=Wis - physical/mental reserve power, or ability to sustain damage without trauma

I'm not saying mine's any better, just interesting that we came to different conclusions.

I can see your reasoning, and I hope you don't mind if I explain where I think you went wrong?

There's a phenomenon where highly intelligent people have more trouble relating to other people. This is a low Charisma high Intelligence character. This character has a poor time persuading others, so can't exert their mental force. They're actually more likely to be cowed and follow less intelligent leaders because they don't have the confidence to speak up. Like the Hulk has tremendous difficulty applying the right amount of force to pick up delicate objects, and is seen as a brute because of it.

While intelligence might seem akin to dexterity, wisdom is a better measure for subtlety and nuance. Sheldon of the Big Bang theory is highly intelligent, but can't get sarcasm. Sarcasm is, as the quote goes, "the lowest form of wit". That shows poor mental dexterity and therefore poor wisdom, while being high Intelligence.

Have you met the sort of person who, whatever you tell them, dismisses your advice because they know better? There's also the type who can't be fazed by anything short of being physically assaulted, and even then just ignores the urge to hit back. These people don't have high wisdom, but the force of personality and self-confidence that makes them mentally tough. The dumb brute who can't be persuaded or cowed, but steered? They're an example of high charisma stats.


This is quite possibly one of the best descriptions I've heard of mental stats.

Now I just gotta remember it.


I absolutely hated the idea of both "being so smart you have faster reflexes" and the premise that a stuffy aristocrat like Sherlock Holmes would frequent Irish fight clubs. When he uses quick thinking to solve traps is one thing, but it blew my suspension of disbelief completely out of the water that he could play fisticuffs-chess.

Think of it less like fisticuffs-chess and more like speed chess. They'd not plan a fight out in advance. They'd think "short opponent: smaller target, higher speed. Counter speed. Hamstring or debilitating wound". That's the first round vs a goblin. When the goblin then whips out a crossbow, the bladesinger tallies likely targets and possible counters to that. Like a chess-playing computer crunches the numbers to 'solve' the game, reacting to each new development by recalculating.

[Tanarii]

Mine were:

Str=Cha - physical/mental force exertion, or ability to overcome others

Dex=Int - physical/mental mastery, or ability to use subtlety and nuance

Con=Wis - physical/mental reserve power, or ability to sustain damage without trauma
Yep. That's how D&D uses them. Explicitly in 4e, implicitly in 3e and 5e..

[BurgerBeast]

I can see your reasoning, and I hope you don't mind if I explain where I think you went wrong?

No, of course not.


There's a phenomenon where highly intelligent people have more trouble relating to other people. This is a low Charisma high Intelligence character. This character has a poor time persuading others, so can't exert their mental force.

I have minor reasons for nit-picking this that I can put aside. I'll take all of this at face-value. At this point this fits both of our models, as far as I can see.



They're actually more likely to be cowed...

I'd say that their likelihood to be cowed depends on other traits, like their own Charisma or Wisdom.



...and follow less intelligent leaders because they don't have the confidence to speak up.

Again. I'm with you that they may not speak up, but that doesn't mean they would necessarily follow. They might just avoid a confrontation and then go their own way.


Like the Hulk has tremendous difficulty applying the right amount of force to pick up delicate objects, and is seen as a brute because of it.

The hulk is a brute. He has low Dexterity and Low Intelligence, which essentially defines a brute, at least in my mind.


While intelligence might seem akin to dexterity, wisdom is a better measure for subtlety and nuance.

I can certainly see this side of it, particular wisdom as intuition. But when we think in terms of understanding difficult academic subjects, the ability to make subtle distinctions and recognized nuances is a function of intelligence. Maybe this means that there is different, better criteria, to distinguish them by.


Sheldon of the Big Bang theory is highly intelligent, but can't get sarcasm. Sarcasm is, as the quote goes, "the lowest form of wit". That shows poor mental dexterity and therefore poor wisdom, while being high Intelligence.

I know this is going to sound strange, but I don't see Sheldon as intelligent. I'm not just saying this to win the argument. I think Sheldon is very knowledgeable, but pretty stupid.


Have you met the sort of person who, whatever you tell them, dismisses your advice because they know better?

Sure, but this can be seen as a number of things, mostly personality traits such as "cocky and arrogant" which, while they can be explained by a particular combination of ability scores, do not necessarily suggest those ability scores. Cocky arrogance can be justified, or it can be a manifestation of stupidity, or low wisdom, for example.


There's also the type who can't be fazed by anything short of being physically assaulted, and even then just ignores the urge to hit back. These people don't have high wisdom, but the force of personality and self-confidence that makes them mentally tough.

Sure. Are these people also generally charismatic? In my experience they are not.


The dumb brute who can't be persuaded or cowed, but steered? They're an example of high charisma stats.

See, for me, they aren't. I think of dumb brutes as having low charisma.

In summary, these are all interesting points. I just focus on different points of distinction.

[Regitnui]

True. You have good points.

One of my favourite moments of the Hulk as a character was when a different character found that he had a glass menagerie. Played for comedy, of course, but to me it said that the Hulk isn't the big, dumb brute. Of course, this is all depending on the writer at the time. I'd stat the Hulk (at rest) as High strength, Average dexterity, massive constitution, high intelligence, lower than average wisdom and low charisma. The physical stats are obvious, with the note that the Hulk is about twice the size of normal humans and is living in a Lilliput. Hulk's first reaction when facing opposition is "fly into a rage", which leads me to low charisma; he's emotionally thin-skinned. Wisdom and intelligence both take massive hits when he flies into a rage, which is admittedly almost all the time when he's green. Consider that there's still the brain of a scientist in there, even of said scientist made the decision to test a risky procedure on himself.

Of course, you're welcome to disagree.

[BurgerBeast]

True. You have good points.

One of my favourite moments of the Hulk as a character was when a different character found that he had a glass menagerie. Played for comedy, of course, but to me it said that the Hulk isn't the big, dumb brute.

I'd be curious to hear more about this, because I'm not sure of context. Maybe it was a stubborn desire to overcome his clumsiness (or whatever you would call the trait you described whereby he fails to be delicate with his hands)?


Hulk's first reaction when facing opposition is "fly into a rage", which leads me to low charisma; he's emotionally thin-skinned.

Yep, this seems to make sense with how you've described your take on his. For me, this is a low wisdom trait. If I want to defeat someone physically, I beat them down until their constitution fails them and they go unconscious or die. If I want to defeat someone manually, I beat them down until their willpower fails them and they fly into a rage or cry or submit.


Wisdom and intelligence both take massive hits when he flies into a rage, which is admittedly almost all the time when he's green. Consider that there's still the brain of a scientist in there, even of said scientist made the decision to test a risky procedure on himself.

Yeah it's interesting that it's still Bruce Banner's brain in there. I think I would personally just stat Bruce Banner and the Hulk separately, or the rage modifiers for "Hulking Out" would cover the changes to ability scores. So, while it's true that Bruce Banner is highly intelligent, I'd say he just isn't when he's the hulk. We could quibble over whether he is, but he just can't control himself, or he isn't, but functionally to me there's no difference. If a player playing the Hulk said he'd like to sit down and solve a calculus problem, I'd say he's going to have a hard time.

I should concede straight away that my knowledge of hulk is pretty limited, so I concede straight away that I could be wrong in much of this.

[Gtdead]

While intelligence might seem akin to dexterity, wisdom is a better measure for subtlety and nuance. Sheldon of the Big Bang theory is highly intelligent, but can't get sarcasm. Sarcasm is, as the quote goes, "the lowest form of wit". That shows poor mental dexterity and therefore poor wisdom, while being high Intelligence.


In my opinion not being capable to understand sarcasm is something that a low charisma character would do.

Let's for argument sake, create 3 personalities. The smart guy, the wise guy and the funny guy.

Lets say that these 3 guys want to respond negatively to the sarcastic statement made by a fourth guy.

The smart guy would probably try to dispute the accuracy of the sarcastic statement.
The wise guy would probably say that the performer should take a look at himself first before he talks about the others.
The funny guy would try respond with a sarcastic remark of his own.

Now lets create 3 more guys. The dumb guy, the reckless guy and the bitter guy. How these would be affected by the sarcastic statement?
The dumb guy will probably be amuzed if he understands what the performer is talking about.
The reckless guy would probably think that if it applies to one, it applies to everyone.
The bitter guy would curse the performer for wasting his time.

Now of course my examples are too binary, and and they are based only loosely to the INT/WIS/CHA, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that wisdom doesn't even bother with sarcasm. Wisdom is more concerned about the outcome. It doesn't have the flair of intelligence that tries to push boundaries, or the flair of charisma that can paint these boundaries with every color it likes.

That's the reason I think that Wisdom is more like CON, because it's about perseverence.

[BurgerBeast]

In my opinion not being capable to understand sarcasm is something that a low charisma character would do....

[examples and argument]

My take on it would go like this: a comedian makes a sarcastic comment.

Intelligence:
(1) determines whether you even recognize that it is sarcasm.
(2) determines whether you recognize the spirit of the comment: is it nasty, is it aimed at anyone, is it just innocent fun?

A low intelligence character might not recognize the sarcasm and take it seriously. A high intelligence character would recognize the sarcasm. An even higher intelligence would recognize the references and/or intent.

Wisdom:
(1) determines how you handle it when you or someone you care about is the victim of nasty sarcasm. Do you let it rattle you? Do you fly into an uncontrollable rage?

Charisma:
(1) doesn't really affect tour ability to understand the situation, but...
(2) If you decide to respond by deflating an attack with humour, or by responding with your own sarcasm, it determines how well received that will be, and how likely it is that the onlookers will feel that you "won" the exchange.
[note that the quality of the sarcastic reply would depend on intelligence, and wisdom might come into play in knowing what to say or controlling one's demeanour, but ultimately you can deliver poorly but win on charisma, or deliver spectacularly and fail on charisma]

So that's my take. It's interesting that much of the debate over where the mental attributes apply is in the realm of more subtle aspects such as:

Wit, charm, sarcasm, intuition, sensing intention, etc.

Very interesting discussion. Thanks to all involved.

[Gtdead]

The rolls sound about right. Just wanted to say that I'm not saying the low charisma guy doesn't understand it. Just that he isn't affected by it. He is all business no play.
In my opinion Cha speaks to the childlike qualities of the character. The point of sarcasm is completely lost on a guy that is all business.

[Tanarii]

Intelligence:
(1) determines whether you even recognize that it is sarcasm.
(2) determines whether you recognize the spirit of the comment: is it nasty, is it aimed at anyone, is it just innocent fun?2 is clearly the domain of Wisdom (Insight). i can see arguing for Intelligence (Insight), as in figuring out from the context. But generally speaking that's something intuitive.

Remember, Wisdom isn't just willpower. It's also awareness of your surroundings and other people, including their intents. So it doesn't perfectly alight with Con, which is pretty exclusively a resisting trait.

A high Int, low Wis character is likely to get lost in his thoughts and not be aware of what's going on around him. A high Wis, low int chacter will notice everything, understand intentions from body language and tone of voice, but be terrible at deducing cause and effect from correlations, the logical conclusion of a series of events of argument, or remembering complex things without drilling them into themselves without plenty of repetition.

(Note "terrible" in D&D character terms means somewhere between 5% (score 8) and 20% (score 3) worse than the norm (score 10). Add an additional 5% worse than the average adventurer (avg score 12-13))

Edit: that also makes noticing sarcasm a wisdom thing most likely. An intuition and awareness thing. Conversely, noticing Wit would be Int. Sarcasm is communicated by tone and body language. Wit is a clever twist on words, and requires a quick mind to see on the fly. (Except for Puns/Dad jokes. Those are truly the lowest form of humor.)

[ZenBear]

On the discussion of physical to mental stat comparisons:

I used to be on the side of STR-INT CON-WIS DEX-CHA, but I'm on the side now that perhaps CON-CHA is a better fit. The way I see it is, Charismatic people are often described as being bold. They say what they want to say, do what they want to do, and their bold defiance of fear defines their charm. The woman who cracks an inappropriate joke that somehow gets a laugh out of grandma, the man who brazenly asks the hot girl at the bar to dance, the con artist who lies without the slightest tell. All of these things are defined by their lack of fear, or defiance of fear, in the act of expression. This doesn't always end well. Grandma sometimes throws a fit and smacks her with a bible, the hot girl sometimes throws a drink in his face, the mark sometimes catches the con in the lie. This doesn't stop the Charismatic person, however. The comedian brushes it off and cracks another joke, the player slicks back his booze soaked hair and asks the other hot girl to dance, the con bull****s harder and dupes a new mark. Tenacity and confidence are the hallmark of the Charismatic person.

Wisdom I like to define thus: Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein is the doctor. Wisdom is knowing Frankenstein is the monster. Wisdom is defined by understanding beyond the obvious. Seeing what's beneath the skin. An Intelligent person can deduce the truth of a con artist's lie if they have enough facts and evidence to piece together. A Wise person can intuit the angle the con artist is trying to play through reading subtle cues, like the con's unusual insistence that you take the deal, or their haste to leave before the dust is settled. This subtlety fits nicely with the finesse of DEX.

Intelligence is processing power. You can take the facts and clues and piece them together quickly and accurately. This skill can be applied in many different ways, including uncovering the truth behind a con man's lie, or fabricating an intricate falsehood through a cleverly selected collection of facts, but it requires evidence and knowledge. If they lack these tangible resources, an Intelligent person will miss the mark. This processing power mirrors the raw force of STR.

IMO. :smallbiggrin:

[BurgerBeast]

2 is clearly the domain of Wisdom (Insight). i can see arguing for Intelligence (Insight), as in figuring out from the context. But generally speaking that's something intuitive.

I fully understand what you're saying here, and this did go through my mind while writing the post. In fact, I'd say that you are correct that Wisdom is almost always the clear choice here. I'm wiling to concede that point.

I still see perception as being sometimes Int, sometimes Wis, but I'm not about to say that I have good reasons, not especially in D&D where things such as Perception checks and Sense Motive checks are traditionally Wisdom-based.


Remember, Wisdom isn't just willpower. It's also awareness of your surroundings and other people, including their intents. So it doesn't perfectly alight with Con, which is pretty exclusively a resisting trait.

Agreed. For me there are still highly specific cases where the intellect triggers that intuition as opposed to wisdom. Not worth quibbling over because, these cases are remote enough to be ignored.


Edit: that also makes noticing sarcasm a wisdom thing most likely. An intuition and awareness thing. Conversely, noticing Wit would be Int. Sarcasm is communicated by tone and body language. Wit is a clever twist on words, and requires a quick mind to see on the fly. (Except for Puns/Dad jokes. Those are truly the lowest form of humor.)

Yeah I think part of the problem here is that we happen to discussing nuanced concept like wit and sarcasm. I think we're generally i agreement.


On the discussion of physical to mental stat comparisons:

I used to be on the side of STR-INT CON-WIS DEX-CHA, but I'm on the side now that perhaps CON-CHA is a better fit. The way I see it is, Charismatic people are often described as being bold...

I think I disagree with you here. One of the problems is that you're describing behaviour and I'm not sure it's correct to predict behaviours from ability scores with any high degree of confidence. So while a person with a high constitution might be more likely to be bold in the face of physical danger, and likewise for charisma and social "danger," boldness/cowardice are personality traits that are independent of Charisma scores.


Wisdom I like to define thus... Intelligence is...

Nice to hear these different views. I'm not convinced, but definitely something to consider.

[Saeviomage]

I think the problem with this argument is that mapping mental stats to physical ones is futile unless that was originally how the stats were designed.

And it's not. Strength was the fighter's stat. Intelligence was the wizard's stat. Wisdom was the cleric's stat. The other three stats gave bonuses. Everything else was added along the editions.

I think that really shows. Wisdom has meandered and collected random abilities along the way, like resistance to magic and con men, and the ability to persuade animals and find tracks, because it is very poorly defined. I mean at one stage it governed the ability to make a living by being a strongman....

[BurgerBeast]

I think the problem with this argument is that mapping mental stats to physical ones is futile unless that was originally how the stats were designed.

Yeah, certainly. I think it's an interesting discussion, though. I've played with other attribute systems before, as well.


And it's not. Strength was the fighter's stat. Intelligence was the wizard's stat. Wisdom was the cleric's stat. The other three stats gave bonuses. Everything else was added along the editions.

Agreed. And there has been much debate among me and my friends about the actual connection between strength and fighting ability (Skills and Powers broke Strength into Muscle and Stamina, I think), and whether Dexterity can really be a catch-all for such things as manual dexterity, aim, agility, coordination, and balance, for example. Interesting stuff, but not necessarily worth arguing over or committing to a particular view on. It's nice to heat others describe systems though, especially internally consistent ones, and to hear the rationale.


I think that really shows. Wisdom has meandered and collected random abilities along the way, like resistance to magic and con men, and the ability to persuade animals and find tracks, because it is very poorly defined. I mean at one stage it governed the ability to make a living by being a strongman....

I didn't know that. I'd actually be interested to learn more about the history of the attributes. I just might do that.

[Regitnui]

I think that really shows. Wisdom has meandered and collected random abilities along the way, like resistance to magic and con men, and the ability to persuade animals and find tracks, because it is very poorly defined. I mean at one stage it governed the ability to make a living by being a strongman....

Oh? Interesting. It'd be very interesting to see what the stats have been used for over time.

[rollingForInit]

I'd rather do away with both Wisdom and Intelligence as named attributes, and replace them with something like Knowledge and Awareness. Most Wisdom-based skills are some form av Awareness, anyway, whether from observing your surroundings or understanding other creatures. The only Intelligence-based skill that isn't a knowledge check is Investigation, and considering the huge amount of discussion that's taken place on Investigation vs Perception, I think that skill should get a rework anyway.

In practise, it'd be very similar to how things are now. There'd just be much less confusion about what the ability scores actually mean, and we could leave the non-mechanical "inteligence" (which is hard to define anyway) up to role-playing. Same with "wisdom". The only thing that would be lacking is a stat for purely rational skills, such as deductions, calculations, breaking ciphers, etc. That could be covered by Knowledge ("has the character memorised the algorithm?"). Or, if we really want a stat for it, we could have something called Logic, maybe.

[JackPhoenix]

Oh? Interesting. It'd be very interesting to see what the stats have been used for over time.

Well, Profession (Anything you can think of that's not actually crafting stuff, except cook, and brewer, and whatever else for some reason) was Wisdom-based skill in 3.x.

[Regitnui]

Well, Profession (Anything you can think of that's not actually crafting stuff, except cook, and brewer, and whatever else for some reason) was Wisdom-based skill in 3.x.

Makes sense to me. Any profession becomes something you intuit over time. The architect who can picture the building on the plot and estimate time, materials and cost is operating off wisdom.

[KorvinStarmast]

Makes sense to me. Any profession becomes something you intuit over time. The architect who can picture the building on the plot and estimate time, materials and cost is operating off wisdom. I was mulling over the original Empire of the Petal Throne rules for character creation (pub in 1975) and noted a few things that later got folded into D&D in different ways.
Strength, Intelligence, Constitution, Psychic Ability, Dexterity, Comeliness.

While based on OD&D in a whole host of ways, in Tekumel you rolled d100 for each stat. Your bonuses were IIRC in 6 slabs of benefit. Real bad, bad, average, and then three levels of "good, better, best). Each time you leveled up, you rolled dice to boost an ability score. (I'd need to go and read that again because I don't remember how many you could boost on a given level up. I seem to recall that it was only one.)

Years later, we see that boost a stat with a level up become more and more common. Prof Barker was ahead of his time, eh?

As to Charisma and Comeliness: via Dragon Magazine articles and finally in UA, Comeliness arrived in AD&D 1e and, quite frankly made the game weirder rather than better by adding a seventh stat. I for one am glad to see it gone except for one aspect of it:
it made the angels and succubi and demigods and deities with great beauty capable of simply overwhelming mere mortals with that unearthly beauty. (Likewise NPC's and PC's of incredible beauty would have mechanical effects on PC and NPC alike. ) Given how wired people are to beauty, or so it seems that they are, there was room for it in some campaigns.
Was it the best idea ever? No, but we fit it in to one campaign we played.
Was it necessary? No.

Intelligence used to have a profound impact on spells you could use, and on how many extra languages you could speak/learn. Depending on the campaign, that could make a difference. Harder to negotiate when you don't know the other language. Easier to avoid combat when you can communicate first and solve the problems without the fight.

That piece, intelligence offering a language bonus, I wish they'd have kept in the game.

===========

On the other hand, The TriStat-Dx system appeals to my KISS principle instincts by distilling it all down to Body, Soul, Mind. But maybe that's a step too far?

[Regitnui]

That piece, intelligence offering a language bonus, I wish they'd have kept in the game.


Isn't there a piece of text somewhere saying you get an additional language per point of intelligence modifier? If not, I'd certainly house-rule it back in as a option. If your character already speaks every mortal language in the area (Say common, dwarf and gnome), there's not much point in the rogue or fighter having learned Elven or Celestial pre-game.

[Temperjoke]

See, I've always seen Wis as more practical, common sense stuff, while Int was the information stat. A high Int character knows the history of a hammer, but a high Wis character is better at using it to hammer nails. I mean, I've seen otherwise intelligent people have a horrible time trying to put a nail in a board.

[Tanarii]

See, I've always seen Wis as more practical, common sense stuff, while Int was the information stat. A high Int character knows the history of a hammer, but a high Wis character is better at using it to hammer nails. I mean, I've seen otherwise intelligent people have a horrible time trying to put a nail in a board.That's lack of experience, modeled by non-proficiency with the tools. I'm above average intelligence, but if I have to use *any* common tool, I'm fairly useless. Or at least it takes me twice as long. Because I have to experiment and figure out the basics of what I'm doing. And I definitely don't know any of the shortcuts or proper ways of doing things. They're not 'common sense', despite what people who have actually used tools like to think.

But if you put me up against someone else and we're both unfamiliar with the tools for the job, I'll figure it out and learn faster than them.

[krugaan]

And remember, every situation can be resolved with creative application of Animal Husbandry.

I lol'ed at this. And my mind went to some very unhealthy places.

[Temperjoke]

That's lack of experience, modeled by non-proficiency with the tools. I'm above average intelligence, but if I have to use *any* common tool, I'm fairly useless. Or at least it takes me twice as long. Because I have to experiment and figure out the basics of what I'm doing. And I definitely don't know any of the shortcuts or proper ways of doing things. They're not 'common sense', despite what people who have actually used tools like to think.

But if you put me up against someone else and we're both unfamiliar with the tools for the job, I'll figure it out and learn faster than them.

Alright, so maybe the hammer thing was a bad example, but my original point still stands regarding Wisdom as more common sense.

[JoeJ]

See, I've always seen Wis as more practical, common sense stuff, while Int was the information stat. A high Int character knows the history of a hammer, but a high Wis character is better at using it to hammer nails. I mean, I've seen otherwise intelligent people have a horrible time trying to put a nail in a board.

I would say using a hammer would be either Dexterity or Strength depending on what you're trying to pound, with the appropriate tool proficiency bonus if you have that.

[Tanarii]

Alright, so maybe the hammer thing was a bad example, but my original point still stands regarding Wisdom as more common sense.
And my argument is there is no such thing as common sense. What most people think of as 'common sense' doesn't exist, it's 'just' a combination of mental quickness, intuition, self-preservation instinct, experience, and a bunch of other crap.

[Temperjoke]

And my argument is there is no such thing as common sense. What most people think of as 'common sense' doesn't exist, it's 'just' a combination of mental quickness, intuition, self-preservation instinct, experience, and a bunch of other crap.

But see, how do you quantify the sum of all that for a character? By giving them a stat score called Wisdom.

[Gtdead]

See, I've always seen Wis as more practical, common sense stuff, while Int was the information stat. A high Int character knows the history of a hammer, but a high Wis character is better at using it to hammer nails. I mean, I've seen otherwise intelligent people have a horrible time trying to put a nail in a board.

However the intelligent person once he learns how to use the hammer, he is going to perform miracles. The wise guy will probably know that enough is enough. ^^

Not sure what I wanted to say, I'm shutting up now.

[Tanarii]

But see, how do you quantify the sum of all that for a character? By giving them a stat score called Wisdom.lol Touche

Of course, D&D 5e has already defined what Wisdom is:
"Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."

Here's what the DMG has to say about Intelligence vs Wisdom. DMG p238
"INTELLIGENCE CHECK VS. WISDOM CHECK
If you have trouble deciding whether to call for an Intelligence or a Wisdom check to determine whether a character notices something, think of it in terms of what a very high or low score in those two abilities might mean.
A character with a high Wisdom but low Intelligence is aware of the surroundings but is bad at interpreting what things mean. The character might spot that one section of a wall is clean and dusty compared to the others, but he or she wouldn't necessarily make the deduction that a secret door is there.
In contrast, a character with high Intelligence and low Wisdom is probably oblivious but clever. The character might not spot the clean section of wall but, if asked about it, could immediately deduce why it's clean.
Wisdom checks allow characters to perceive what is around them (the wall is clean here), while Intelligence checks answer why things are that way (there's probably a secret door)."

[ZenBear]

In my current game investigation was like the most useful skill of everything. Like legit it saved us so many times and gave us so much info.

I would like to hear more about specific ways Investigation has been used in-game, please. Open question to everyone.

[Slipperychicken]

I would like to hear more about specific ways Investigation has been used in-game, please. Open question to everyone.

Here are a few examples from DMG and OotA


Ability(Skill)DCDescriptionSource
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)13Spotting that damage to a room is recentOotA
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Confirm that a hidden pit is indeed a pitDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Deduce the presence of a poison dart trap's pressure plateDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Notice a trap door on the ceiling for a rolling sphere trapDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Notice the pressure plate for a rolling sphere trapDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)20Find a buyer for a magic item you wish to sellDMG 130
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)20Spotting a poison needle trapOotA[td]



In my games, I've used the skill to comb over a manor and find clues about the location of a missing person, indicating things like direction and means of exit. I've also used it to search rooms and find loot. We treat it as covering most of the detective-work stuff we try to do, and using it helps the GM throw us a bone when we get stuck.

[Socratov]

personally, just to add my 2cp to the discussion

I'd equate the mental to physical stats as follows, and I'll equate delivering a physical blow to delivering an argument:

you start creating your argument by weighing options, gathering data and selecting from that data a line of deductive reasoning you fold into an argument. This is clearly int, and if you'd deliver a physical blow you'd flex your muscles in a certain way to gather momentum with your weapon to place the blow. So, int would equate with str in this regard.

Then, to deliver your argument, you weigh the pros and cons of phrasing and your position in the debate to deliver the argument. either you want to strike a weak spot into another's reasoning or maybe you want to build a crafty line of defense. This would equate with dex: the subtle manipulation to a greater benefit.

Now your opponent comes with a counter argument. This is where wis comes into play: you analyse the opponent by perceiving his argument, his way of delivery, tone of voice, tempo, pitch, everything. You can infer wether or not he is speaking the truth, or trying to weasel out. In total, it's your defense, it decides wether you can succumb or deliver yet another counter point. Cogito ergo sum, wis is equated with CON.

As for int's place in DnD, it's precarious: if given too miuch agency it can wreck the game (see 3.5), if restricted too far, it's useless (see 5e)

[ZenBear]

Here are a few examples from DMG and OotA


Ability(Skill)DCDescriptionSource
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)13Spotting that damage to a room is recentOotA
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Confirm that a hidden pit is indeed a pitDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Deduce the presence of a poison dart trap's pressure plateDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Notice a trap door on the ceiling for a rolling sphere trapDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)15Notice the pressure plate for a rolling sphere trapDMG 122-123
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)20Find a buyer for a magic item you wish to sellDMG 130
[td]Intelligence(Investigation)20Spotting a poison needle trapOotA[td]



In my games, I've used the skill to comb over a manor and find clues about the location of a missing person, indicating things like direction and means of exit. I've also used it to search rooms and find loot. We treat it as covering most of the detective-work stuff we try to do, and using it helps the GM throw us a bone when we get stuck.

I don't really like making Investigation the trap finding skill due to its obvious overlap with Perception, though I certainly understand where they are coming from.

When I look at the Investigation skill alongside the knowledge skills the idea leaps out at me that all the knowledge skills are specializations, a specific topic you have studied and gained a comprehensive understanding of, while Investigation is the baseline skill you used to obtain that knowledge. Arcana, History, Religion, etc constitute your major, whereas Investigation is your general education that teaches you how to learn. As such I would change the Sage background to give Investigation and one knowledge skill of your choice.

As for how to use that in-game, I think it's best to keep it open-ended. In 5e INT is such a low value stat that allowing someone who has invested in it to leverage that skill in as many ways as their creativity allows, within reason.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't really like making Investigation the trap finding skill due to its obvious overlap with Perception, though I certainly understand where they are coming from.

When I look at the Investigation skill alongside the knowledge skills the idea leaps out at me that all the knowledge skills are specializations, a specific topic you have studied and gained a comprehensive understanding of, while Investigation is the baseline skill you used to obtain that knowledge. Arcana, History, Religion, etc constitute your major, whereas Investigation is your general education that teaches you how to learn. As such I would change the Sage background to give Investigation and one knowledge skill of your choice.

As for how to use that in-game, I think it's best to keep it open-ended. In 5e INT is such a low value stat that allowing someone who has invested in it to leverage that skill in as many ways as their creativity allows, within reason.

In almost all of those examples, the trap or whatever says "wis(perception) or int(investigation)". There's supposed to be an overlap.


One of the things that severely devalues intelligence in 5e is that knowledge skills rely entirely on the DM's willingness and ability to give you 'free' information. If he doesn't feel like telling you the monster's weakness (say he wants to 'make the players work for it' instead), he can just tell you couldn't possibly know, and it doesn't matter what you rolled. Not only that, but if the DM really wants the players to know something, he'll usually give it to them even if they don't roll well.

Once you realize just how unreliable the knowledge skills are, you might as well just give up on the stat and pick a different proficiency.

[JoeJ]

In almost all of those examples, the trap or whatever says "wis(perception) or int(investigation)". There's supposed to be an overlap.


One of the things that severely devalues intelligence in 5e is that knowledge skills rely entirely on the DM's willingness and ability to give you 'free' information. If he doesn't feel like telling you the monster's weakness (say he wants to 'make the players work for it' instead), he can just tell you couldn't possibly know, and it doesn't matter what you rolled. Not only that, but if the DM really wants the players to know something, he'll usually give it to them even if they don't roll well.

Once you realize just how unreliable the knowledge skills are, you might as well just give up on the stat and pick a different proficiency.

That problem is rooted in the nature of RPGs. Much of the information that is important for an adventure is either something they need to know in order for the adventure to proceed (the name "Sarah" written in the murder victim's blood is name of the Prime Minister's wife), or something they can't know yet without destroying the adventure (the real murderer was the Baron's mistress, also named Sarah).

One reasonable work around is to eliminate most of the die rolls, but make having a certain proficiency the price of admission. IOW, the PC with proficiency in Arcana automatically gets the information the party needs regarding magical lore, and if nobody has the proficiency then that particular adventure won't be run at all. That eliminates the swinginess that can randomly endanger an adventure without invalidating the player's choice.

[BurgerBeast]

Makes sense to me. Any profession becomes something you intuit over time. The architect who can picture the building on the plot and estimate time, materials and cost is operating off wisdom.

The problem I have run into often when thinking about this is the role of experience (XP and Levels) in D&D. For me, you are not pointing to Wisdom so much in this example as you are pointing to experience. And experience is already modelled in the XP system. And it's more-or-less a good system for what it does. As a character develops experience, they improve in all of these ways already via the XP system.


But see, how do you quantify the sum of all that for a character? By giving them a stat score called Wisdom.

Again - it seems to me - the answer is experience. So I often thought "Wisdom" had no place in the game insofar as it represents experience, because that's what XP does. But Wisdom could serve as a model for Intuition (if you accept that such a thing exists), or Willpower, or Piety, or something of that sort, as has been mentioned by others.

[Saeviomage]

But Wisdom could serve as a model for Intuition (if you accept that such a thing exists), or Willpower, or Piety, or something of that sort, as has been mentioned by others.

The problem is that right now it's all of them, plus perception and medical treatment.

Eh, just do what I do and use the variant skill rules, allowing combinations between stats and skills, then let people use mostly whatever they want (with appropriate justification). It makes these sorts of arguments go away, allows more interesting characters, makes players describe their actions more, encourages them to use skills instead of always relying on spells and in the long run makes for more successful complicated plans.