Making Intelligence Matter

[mer.c]

OK, before I launch into this, I should make it clear that as a DM, I don't really feel like every ability needs to be balanced in a grand sense. If some abilities are more good more often than others, that's not the end of the world for me.

But, what I really don't like is that a few stats feel almost inconsequential a lot of the time. For this thread, I'm singling out Intelligence. With the exception of Wizards and (sometimes) the few Wizard-ish subclasses, there's very little in-game representation of the difference between characters with high, medium, or low Intelligence. Some DMs enforce acting dumb if you dump Intelligence, but I don't think that's particularly fun for a lot of players. From a strictly mechanical perspective, low Int pretty much gives you a penalty to some of the worst skills in the game. And they get Investigation. That's about it. There are corner cases like the rare Intelligence save, but most characters will function identically whether they have Intelligence 8 or 20.

What I'd like to do isn't make Intelligence the best ability, or make it as universally strong as Constitution, or anything like that. What I'm looking for is a way of giving characters a few nice unique rewards for investing in Intelligence, just like a character gets some nice social bonuses for investing in Charisma, or good Initiative and saves (and maybe some AC, depending on armor) from Dexterity.

I really liked what 3.x did for Intelligence by giving some nice feats an Int prerequisite, and by increasing the number of skill points per level by the character's Int modifier. But unfortunately, those don't really translate into 5e. You can brew a bunch of cool feats that take Int – and maybe I'll do that – but that's a big undertaking. And extra skill points is hard to port over.

What I'm considering so far is the common facsimile of the skill point bonus, of just giving characters a number of extra proficiencies in mental skills (so anything governed by Int/Wis/Cha), tools, instruments, or languages equal to their Int modifier. I've also considered letting characters use either their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier for their Initiative bonus, to represent mental acuity, quickness, and alertness.

That seems like a good start, but I'd like to give Int something a little more punchy and fun. I haven't tried this yet, but one thing that would fit the bill is going with the modified Speed Factor Initiative system that MaxWilson posted recently. However you handle the initiative part – speed factor, traditional initiative, or something else – you can have characters (players, NPCs, and enemies) declare their actions in ascending order of Intelligence. That way, the characters with higher Int can declare their actions with foreknowledge of what the other characters are going to do. That does a great job of simulating the difference between high- and low-Int characters in a way that's fun, interesting, unique, and has an impact on how the game plays out. So it really fits the bill. The biggest problem is that I'm not sure how the system would go over with my players, who are pretty new to D&D.

I'd love to hear suggestions/stories/critiques/anecdotes from others here. Have you found anything that works well? Anything you'd like to try, or want to suggest? Comments or critiques on my proposed changes? I'm all ears?

[Gtdead]

Our campaign has a lot of mystery. Every perception check is followed by an investigation or knowledge check. The guy that wanted to play a wizard decided to switch to sorcerer. We all regreted that decision.

This is enough for me to consider intelligence as a stat of paramount importance. In this sense it doesn't really need any boost. It just needs players that understand the impact of lacking good investigation/knowledge checks.

[Slipperychicken]

Intelligence is weak in 5e because DMs are not willing or prepared to give out in-character knowledge, and the system does almost nothing to encourage them to reward knowledge checks. They often justify it by claiming that every enemy the PCs' face is completely novel and its abilities could not possibly be known or guessed, but this serves to neuter intelligence skills to near-uselessness. If my character never knows anything anyway, why bother putting a high stat in intelligence? If an Int 14 fighter is just going to blunder about the world like an amnesiac oaf knowing nothing, he might as well have Int 8 so I can put that 14 in constitution or dexterity and get a real benefit.


I'd have intelligence checks give information like monster stats and CR (i.e. its AC is 17, its CR is 8, it can breathe fire, it regenerates, its lowest stats are dexterity and charisma, and so on). As in, the DM actually gives some of this information on a successful check instead of saying "there's no way your character could possibly know" or "your character wouldn't know". Obviously the PC would not have the precise numbers, but the knowledge is meant to reflect a clear understanding of what the monster is and can do. That would go a long way toward making intelligence useful in a way that makes sense.

[MrFahrenheit]

Regarding combat-
Two words: Intellect Devourers
Bonus two words: Bounded Accuracy

Outside of combat, how developed is your setting? Are characters regularly rolling history checks to see if they know some forgotten lore which could piece together where the next macguffin is? Are they rolling investigation upon showing up in a new locale to find out about side quests that can be accomplished while they're in town? As a case in point, my party rolled pretty average investigation checks the last time they were new to a city, and received only half to two thirds of the side quests I wrote up. That's potential xp out the window.

Do they roll arcana to determine a spell being cast, religion to find out a demon's weaknesses, or nature to make sure the berries they foraged aren't poisonous?

I personally wouldn't make int any more important than it is. Just use it more and the party will see :)

[mer.c]

High-intrigue settings are definitely a place for Int to shine. However, I'm a new DM, so we've only run Lost Mines and are just about to start Princes of the Apocalypse. Lost Mines has virtually zero use for most knowledge skills, plus a couple minorly useful Investigation checks. I'm not far enough into reading Princes to get a sense of how those skills would play out there.

I love Slipperychicken's idea. I'm not averse in the slightest to giving in-world knowledge as a reward for good skill checks or Int scores – in fact I'm very much for it. I especially like the idea of just giving some information when asked for it without a check, assuming the PC in question has enough Int (or the right combination of Int and familiarity with the matter). I hadn't done much of this before since I find it really meta-gamey saying "It has CR 5 and 87 average HP", but giving more in-world descriptors would be a good way of going about it that I hadn't really tumbled to.

I don't think I'd want to boost up Intelligence solely by giving out meta-knowledge like that, since its bonus diminishes the more the players learn about the game. But it's a good way of rewarding good Int scores, especially for newer players, and broadening the sorts of things it can apply to would help keep it relevant later in the players' D&D careers.

[kaoskonfety]

I'd have intelligence checks give information like monster stats and CR (i.e. its AC is 17, its CR is 8, it can breathe fire, it regenerates, its lowest stats are dexterity and charisma, and so on). As in, the DM actually gives some of this information on a successful check instead of saying "there's no way your character could possibly know" or "your character wouldn't know". Obviously the PC would not have the precise numbers, but the knowledge is meant to reflect a clear understanding of what the monster is and can do. That would go a long way toward making intelligence useful in a way that makes sense.

Something in here where you make the DC'd on knowledge checks relate to specific information. If the players have even some rough guidelines they can make the call more easily.

Off the cuff...

Easy - DC5 - its name, type and anything quite obvious from even basic lore (dragon breath is BAD, unicorns are mostly not evil)
Normal - DC10 - Fluff from the manual - Chuuls often work for Aboeths, Spectators are Guard Beasts with a screw loose, CR in broad strokes - its a threat to a man, a village, a city, the nation
Difficult - DC15 - Fluff and Physical Details: Black dragons breath acid and can live underwater, they are cruel even by chromatic dragon standards and eat their food rotten and pickled in swamp water
Hard - DC20 - Detailed CR - A dragon of this size is about CR X, it is large enough to have command of its environment (liar actions)
Very Hard - DC25 - AC, average HP, this specific dragons name and recent/historically significant exploits, the list of monsters that cause a regional effect you have encountered
"That's Impossible!" - DC30 - here's the monster manual, the beast in front of you is probably not exactly the same, feel free to ask a few questions regarding this specific specimen or to clarify where the manual leaves it open for the DM to make choices (Dragon spell casting, Aboeth Origins, weird powers)


Edit - if you don't like handing out meta-knowlegde in the form of AC, CR and HP replace with anecdotes of what it has taken to kill or (in the bigger cases) significantly wound one.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The thing is that lore skills are pretty much a one-man job. You're almost certainly not going to hit a situation where not having Arcana will lock you out of a scene- certainly nothing like not having good social skills. Nor are you likely to get in trouble if some party members fail, like Stealth. Being an expert is, well, a single role that doesn't really need everyone to dabble.

For that reason, I support extra proficiencies. Maybe a language for every +1, and a new mental skill or tool at, oh, 14 and 18.


As a case in point, my party rolled pretty average investigation checks the last time they were new to a city, and received only half to two thirds of the side quests I wrote up. That's potential xp out the window.
But they'll never know that. And this isn't like a video game where there's a limited amount of total experience; every season you'll do stuff, advance the plot and get rewards.

[Spacehamster]

Int 8-11: nothing special
Int 12-13: 1 bonus language, 1 bonus skill proficiency
Int 14-20: 1 bonus tool, 1 bonus skill proficiency

Something like this would make it bit interesting to invest into 12 INT from time to time?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Int 8-11: nothing special
Int 12-13: 1 bonus language, 1 bonus skill proficiency
Int 14-20: 1 bonus tool, 1 bonus skill proficiency

Something like this would make it bit interesting to invest into 12 INT from time to time?
I would definitely try to hit that any time I could, after primary stats and Con.

[Regitnui]

Doesn't the 'Mystic' UA show that WotC's looking to make Intelligence the go-to save against psionics? Maybe the perceived lack of emphasis on Intelligence is just cleared design space for psionics in the PHB2

[RickAllison]

Something in here where you make the DC'd on knowledge checks relate to specific information. If the players have even some rough guidelines they can make the call more easily.

Off the cuff...

Easy - DC5 - its name, type and anything quite obvious from even basic lore (dragon breath is BAD, unicorns are mostly not evil)
Normal - DC10 - Fluff from the manual - Chuuls often work for Aboeths, Spectators are Guard Beasts with a screw loose, CR in broad strokes - its a threat to a man, a village, a city, the nation
Difficult - DC15 - Fluff and Physical Details: Black dragons breath acid and can live underwater, they are cruel even by chromatic dragon standards and eat their food rotten and pickled in swamp water
Hard - DC20 - Detailed CR - A dragon of this size is about CR X, it is large enough to have command of its environment (liar actions)
Very Hard - DC25 - AC, average HP, this specific dragons name and recent/historically significant exploits, the list of monsters that cause a regional effect you have encountered
"That's Impossible!" - DC30 - here's the monster manual, the beast in front of you is probably not exactly the same, feel free to ask a few questions regarding this specific specimen or to clarify where the manual leaves it open for the DM to make choices (Dragon spell casting, Aboeth Origins, weird powers)


Edit - if you don't like handing out meta-knowlegde in the form of AC, CR and HP replace with anecdotes of what it has taken to kill or (in the bigger cases) significantly wound one.

My DM did this! We had been hurting for intelligence when our old wizard left and became a monk instead, and I think the next highest was only 12. I came in when my monk (yes, I am aware of the coincidence) left and I chose a wizard/Knowledge Cleric 1 with all Int skills. We got into a combat with some succubi and I rolled the dread 30+. He looked at the die, looked at me, looked at his Monster Manual, and then just handed it to me. Spent the next few turns describing in 6-second chunks as much important information as I could while lightly punching anyone who was charmed.

[kaoskonfety]

My DM did this! We had been hurting for intelligence when our old wizard left and became a monk instead, and I think the next highest was only 12. I came in when my monk (yes, I am aware of the coincidence) left and I chose a wizard/Knowledge Cleric 1 with all Int skills. We got into a combat with some succubi and I rolled the dread 30+. He looked at the die, looked at me, looked at his Monster Manual, and then just handed it to me. Spent the next few turns describing in 6-second chunks as much important information as I could while lightly punching anyone who was charmed.

With rolls like that it appears you spent a productive afternoon in the sexy part of the forbidden lore library at some point in your youth. It's only natural... expect for the succubus part, those are fiends from the lower planes bent on our death and domination.

[RickAllison]

With rolls like that it appears you spent a productive afternoon in the sexy part of the forbidden lore library at some point in your youth. It's only natural... expect for the succubus part, those are fiends from the lower planes bent on our death and domination.

It earned extra disturbing points because I was a 7'8" bipedal bull! Gotta love Expertise giving a +13 :smallsmile:

Oooo and next level, it will be a +15. I might ask my DM if I can get advantage on the checks if I have my lore book in hand at the time!

[MrFahrenheit]

I would definitely try to hit that any time I could, after primary stats and Con.

Not sure how "5e" this feels though...like, if you're doing that for int, you should do something similar for all the others. Strength for instance only has one linked skill (athletics), and I often - though definitely not always - find it interchangeable with acrobatics.

[Pex]

Intelligence is weak in 5e because DMs are not willing or prepared to give out in-character knowledge, and the system does almost nothing to encourage them to reward knowledge checks. They often justify it by claiming that every enemy the PCs' face is completely novel and its abilities could not possibly be known or guessed, but this serves to neuter intelligence skills to near-uselessness. If my character never knows anything anyway, why bother putting a high stat in intelligence? If an Int 14 fighter is just going to blunder about the world like an amnesiac oaf knowing nothing, he might as well have Int 8 so I can put that 14 in constitution or dexterity and get a real benefit.


I'd have intelligence checks give information like monster stats and CR (i.e. its AC is 17, its CR is 8, it can breathe fire, it regenerates, its lowest stats are dexterity and charisma, and so on). As in, the DM actually gives some of this information on a successful check instead of saying "there's no way your character could possibly know" or "your character wouldn't know". Obviously the PC would not have the precise numbers, but the knowledge is meant to reflect a clear understanding of what the monster is and can do. That would go a long way toward making intelligence useful in a way that makes sense.

This.

It's not just a 5E thing. Some DMs just can't stand it for players knowing stuff.

[Kryx]

Not sure how "5e" this feels though...like, if you're doing that for int, you should do something similar for all the others. Strength for instance only has one linked skill (athletics), and I often - though definitely not always - find it interchangeable with acrobatics.
There are 78 strength saving throws in the game along with very common things like grapple, push, athletics (top 3 most common skills in my game), etc.

Intelligence has 8 saving throws and a fair amount of knowledge skills. It is not equivalent.


If you've equated Acrobatics to Athletics then I would encourage you to revist the PHB where it discusses their uses.
Athletics is for Climbing, Jumping, Swimming
Acrobatics is for Balance, escaping grapples, and stunts. None of the items mentioned for Athletics.

[Spacehamster]

Not sure how "5e" this feels though...like, if you're doing that for int, you should do something similar for all the others. Strength for instance only has one linked skill (athletics), and I often - though definitely not always - find it interchangeable with acrobatics.

The other ability scores are not useless tho? Lots more classes/builds that youse STR for example. :)

[MrFahrenheit]

I mean the skill attached to it, not the attribute itself...though there is some degree comparison: strength is only guaranteed useful for barbarians (like int and wizards). Many fighters and even some Paladins can neglect str for dex. Not as extreme as int, but probably a good runner up for least-used stat.

[Kryx]

I mean the skill attached to it, not the attribute itself...though there is some degree comparison: strength is only guaranteed useful for barbarians (like int and wizards). Many fighters and even some Paladins can neglect str for dex. Not as extreme as int, but probably a good runner up for least-used stat.
Let me reiterate: 78 strength saving throws (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=0), 8 int (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1040365162), and 22 charisma (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1184726076).

Beyond that a Strength Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian all do significantly more damage than dex builds.

Dex/Con > Wis > Str > Cha > Int

Social (Cha) and Knowledge (Int) can be handled by one person while everyone will want to be able to make those saving throws and climb/jump/swim.

[Tanarii]

From a strictly mechanical perspective, low Int pretty much gives you a penalty to some of the worst skills in the game. And they get Investigation. That's about it.Your entire premise fell apart at this point. This is strictly an opinion. Or at most, a campaign and/or DM dependent case.


Social (Cha) and Knowledge (Int) can be handled by one personAnother thing that's a campaign / DM dependent case.

[mer.c]

Your entire premise fell apart at this point. This is strictly an opinion. Or at most, a campaign and/or DM dependent case.

It is a campaign/DM dependent case, yes. As the DM, and a very new DM, I don't want to feel as if making Int matter is 100% up to my not-well-developed DMing skills. What I can tell you from my last adventure (Lost Mines) is that there was no point at which any of the knowledge skills mattered in the slightest, and my DM acumen wasn't developed enough to come up with and work in things to reward knowledge checks on the fly. Maybe Princes is different, and as a full-fledged campaign maybe I'll be able to work more uses in. But I'd like for there to be other uses for Int so the ability is still worth something in case I can't pull that off.

Does that make sense?

On the subject of Strength, I agree both that Strength falls into that same category of "priority #1 when it matters, near-useless otherwise" and that it's not in as bad shape as Int. As noted, Athletics is a great skill (not requiring specific worldbuilding and/or DM Fiat to make it good), and Strength saves are all over the place. It could for sure use help, though.

I'm going to try experimenting with (mild) Strength requirements on Scale Mail and higher, while changing the movement speed penalty to 5' per point of Strength under the requirement (instead of a flat 10' if you're too low). I also allow Intimidate to key off of either Charisma or Strength. That may be enough of a nudge to make non-Strength-focused characters consider Strength as something other than a dump stat. We'll see. :)


Int 8-11: nothing special
Int 12-13: 1 bonus language, 1 bonus skill proficiency
Int 14-20: 1 bonus tool, 1 bonus skill proficiency

Something like this would make it bit interesting to invest into 12 INT from time to time?

This is great! I like it much more than what I was going to use, which was getting 1 language/tool/skill per Int modifier. Your way does a better job of rewarding a nice Int "dip," without piling too much additional flexibility on top of the Wizard's already-top-tier flexibility.

[Zman]

Give a number of bonus languages equal to their Int modifier, and if it increases let them learn new ones. Could also go for tool Proficiencies instead of languages as well.

Int is tricky mechanically and depending on how DM give out information etc it matters.

[Demonic Spoon]

It is a campaign/DM dependent case, yes. As the DM, and a very new DM, I don't want to feel as if making Int matter is 100% up to my not-well-developed DMing skills. What I can tell you from my last adventure (Lost Mines) is that there was no point at which any of the knowledge skills mattered in the slightest, and my DM acumen wasn't developed enough to come up with and work in things to reward knowledge checks on the fly. Maybe Princes is different, and as a full-fledged campaign maybe I'll be able to work more uses in. But I'd like for there to be other uses for Int so the ability is still worth something in case I can't pull that off.

Knowledge checks are one of those things that are really on the players to remember to use. Just like Stealth isn't very useful if you never sneak anywhere, the knowledge skills aren't useful if you never want/need to know about anything.

I don't think it's reasonable for a DM, especially one that's new, to think of all the possible situations where the players might have pertinent information. However, if the player runs across a monster, a culture, or a cult that they want to know about, that player can ask and the result will almost always be an INT-based check.


INT-based skills - both Investigation as well as the four Knowledge checks - are some of the most heavily-rolled skills used both in games I play in and in games I DM in. At the bare minimum they can be used to provide useful tactical information in combat, and the narrative possibilities go well beyond that.

[MrFahrenheit]

Let me reiterate: 78 strength saving throws (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=0), 8 int (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1040365162), and 22 charisma (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1184726076).

Beyond that a Strength Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian all do significantly more damage than dex builds.

Dex/Con > Wis > Str > Cha > Int

Social (Cha) and Knowledge (Int) can be handled by one person while everyone will want to be able to make those saving throws and climb/jump/swim.

Never seen that doc before, nice work!

I stand corrected but in any event, I would caution against playing with house rules too much before you do what's RAW more often. I introduced a few house rules into my 5e campaign early on, and while none of them take away from the game, eventually retconned down to three, and I'm only inclined to take one of them forward to my next campaign.

The reason for this IMO is that 5e does a truly excellent job of balancing quantity vs quality: you may need to make 100 acrobatics checks during the course of a campaign, while only making 10 history checks. However, each from the latter provided the knowledge equivalent of ten from the former.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Let's look at the stats, shall we? First we have the physical stats:

Strength: Carrying capacity, heavy armor and weapons, common save
Dexterity: Initiative, AC, ranged weapons, common save
Constitution: Hit points, Concentration checks, common save

Depending on your build you can dump Strength, though there's at least some practical consequence of doing so. Moreover, all three are commonly used saves, and Str and Dex have major skills keyed off them. Then there are the mental stats

Intelligence: ?
Wisdom: Perception, common save
Charisma: ?

None are technically as universally useful as the physical stats, but Wisdom has the virtue of being attached to the most common skill and (I think?) most common save. Charisma is the other classic dump stat, though potentially one with more roleplaying consequences than most. I'm firmly in the camp that it's more useful to dabble in Cha/social skills than it is to dabble in Int/lore skills, though.


Not sure how "5e" this feels though...like, if you're doing that for int, you should do something similar for all the others. Strength for instance only has one linked skill (athletics), and I often - though definitely not always - find it interchangeable with acrobatics.
On the other hand, it's in line with recent D&D tradition, so <shrug>.


Another thing that's a campaign / DM dependent case.
Social skills certainly make sense for lots of people to have-- from a "I can take part in this talky bit" perspective, if nothing else-- but knowledge? It's not like you generally use the skills to interact with a scene; you ask a question and the GM answers. You don't need a spokesperson, either, since it's natural to have your character ask the wizard something you're curious about. Apart from having another shot at knowing something and split-the-party-parties, what kind of bonus do you get from having a second lore-monkey in the party?

[mer.c]

I'm very on-board with trying to make changes that feel as native to 5e as possible, and preferably that happen largely on the DM's end of things. That's a big part of why I've been going with the extra proficiencies route. I let the players know what they get for extra Int when they're rolling characters, and then they put those proficiencies on their character sheet. No finagling with extra rules; just checking which dots they have filled in. :smallwink:

[chando]

Realistic speaking we are talking about D&D adventures, a.k.a, people who go out of their way to look for MONSTERS to kill and take their stuff. Why whould we need to encourage them to be intelligent? :P

kidding aside, I'm toying with the idea to intruduce a granular proficiency gain in my home campaign, toping at 20:

Int Benefits
10-11 bonus language
12-13 bonus tool proficiency*
14-15 bonus skill proficiency
16-17 bonus language
18-19 bonus tool proficiency*
20+ bonus skill proficiency

*may be replaced with profiency with a single weapon or shields.

maybe shift the weapon\shield prof to alternate with the skill prof? I just don't think tool proficiency alone is gonna be enough to for people to want to invest in INT 12. 14 is a pretty big commitment to a ability score if its not really pertinent to the rest of your build, so you should get something nice out of it. What do you guys think?

[Eldamar]

I don't see anything wrong with Int as it is. If you're having a problem making Int matter, it's you. Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion all go off Int. These are some of the most important skills, beside Perception and Athletics, in the game. I've run games where everyone in the group dumped Int and they weren't a very bright bunch. Their lives were more difficult because they straight up didn't know very much about anything.

As an example, my players found an old spellbook while adventuring. There was a strange spell written on the last page. I called for an Arcana check to decipher the nature of that spell. My player passed, but if she hadn't she'd have no idea that the spell summoned demons.

An example of me as a player. We were investigating a demon cult and we found them in the middle of their summoning ritual. No one rolled an Arcana check, but we lucked out and killed the cultists the demon was to be bound to. What f we didn't kill the head honcho's in time? We'd have had a very powerful demon under the command of these cultists.

Withhold important information unless someone asks for it, and then make 'em roll. There are consequences to being a dumb adventurer. Like strolling into a Duergar city and not knowing they can turn invisible as you attempt to pick someone's pocket.

[Tanarii]

It is a campaign/DM dependent case, yes. As the DM, and a very new DM, I don't want to feel as if making Int matter is 100% up to my not-well-developed DMing skills. What I can tell you from my last adventure (Lost Mines) is that there was no point at which any of the knowledge skills mattered in the slightest, and my DM acumen wasn't developed enough to come up with and work in things to reward knowledge checks on the fly. Maybe Princes is different, and as a full-fledged campaign maybe I'll be able to work more uses in. But I'd like for there to be other uses for Int so the ability is still worth something in case I can't pull that off.

Does that make sense?Yes, it does. 5e pre-built adventures are notorious for their very poor use of Int-based skills and Int checks. If you're playing in them, you either need a DM willing to wing Int checks not in the modules and to start prompting/asking for checks, or you can safely dump Int. if you're the DM, you either start improvising stuff not explicitly included (which can potentially screw up the difficulty depending on what you're doing) or expect players to dump Int.


Social skills certainly make sense for lots of people to have-- from a "I can take part in this talky bit" perspective, if nothing else-- but knowledge? It's not like you generally use the skills to interact with a scene; you ask a question and the GM answers. You don't need a spokesperson, either, since it's natural to have your character ask the wizard something you're curious about. Apart from having another shot at knowing something and split-the-party-parties, what kind of bonus do you get from having a second lore-monkey in the party?
PCs don't have instantaneous mental communication. In non-stressful, free communication situations, checks aren't particularly called for in the first place, unless it's a gated difficulty, ie a Nearly Impossible task needs a +10 bonus to pass even with all the time in the world.

But in situations where a check is called for, it's unlikely the PCs can freely communicate the information anyway. They need to make decisions based on their own in-character knowledge in that case. So having access to the deductive or memory recall capabilities, or Lore skill proficiency, is very important.

Unless your DM just isn't finding ways to make deductive skills or memory recall or Lore relevant in stressful & time limited situations anyway. In which case you're back to square one, and Int just isn't a particularly useful stat under that DM for any character, since Int checks aren't really required at all.

Edit: the most common thing that can change this is a DM that substitutes Int checks or skills as a replacement for 'does your character know this tidbit of information' in non-stressful situations. And only uses it for that. In that case, yeah, you can easily meta the game by having one lore capable character.

[MaxWilson]

OK, before I launch into this, I should make it clear that as a DM, I don't really feel like every ability needs to be balanced in a grand sense. If some abilities are more good more often than others, that's not the end of the world for me.

But, what I really don't like is that a few stats feel almost inconsequential a lot of the time. For this thread, I'm singling out Intelligence. With the exception of Wizards and (sometimes) the few Wizard-ish subclasses, there's very little in-game representation of the difference between characters with high, medium, or low Intelligence. Some DMs enforce acting dumb if you dump Intelligence, but I don't think that's particularly fun for a lot of players. From a strictly mechanical perspective, low Int pretty much gives you a penalty to some of the worst skills in the game. And they get Investigation. That's about it. There are corner cases like the rare Intelligence save, but most characters will function identically whether they have Intelligence 8 or 20.

What I'd like to do isn't make Intelligence the best ability, or make it as universally strong as Constitution, or anything like that. What I'm looking for is a way of giving characters a few nice unique rewards for investing in Intelligence, just like a character gets some nice social bonuses for investing in Charisma, or good Initiative and saves (and maybe some AC, depending on armor) from Dexterity.

I really liked what 3.x did for Intelligence by giving some nice feats an Int prerequisite, and by increasing the number of skill points per level by the character's Int modifier. But unfortunately, those don't really translate into 5e. You can brew a bunch of cool feats that take Int – and maybe I'll do that – but that's a big undertaking. And extra skill points is hard to port over.

What I'm considering so far is the common facsimile of the skill point bonus, of just giving characters a number of extra proficiencies in mental skills (so anything governed by Int/Wis/Cha), tools, instruments, or languages equal to their Int modifier. I've also considered letting characters use either their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier for their Initiative bonus, to represent mental acuity, quickness, and alertness.

That seems like a good start, but I'd like to give Int something a little more punchy and fun. I haven't tried this yet, but one thing that would fit the bill is going with the modified Speed Factor Initiative system that MaxWilson posted recently. However you handle the initiative part – speed factor, traditional initiative, or something else – you can have characters (players, NPCs, and enemies) declare their actions in ascending order of Intelligence. That way, the characters with higher Int can declare their actions with foreknowledge of what the other characters are going to do. That does a great job of simulating the difference between high- and low-Int characters in a way that's fun, interesting, unique, and has an impact on how the game plays out. So it really fits the bill. The biggest problem is that I'm not sure how the system would go over with my players, who are pretty new to D&D.

I'd love to hear suggestions/stories/critiques/anecdotes from others here. Have you found anything that works well? Anything you'd like to try, or want to suggest? Comments or critiques on my proposed changes? I'm all ears?

Haha, I was about to chime in and then I finished reading and saw that you are well-aware of my experiences. Let me just say that I've seen a lot of PCs boosting Intelligence as a secondary stat. Technically, Alert might be an even stronger pick for them because it trumps high Intelligence for action declaration (my players aren't really optimizers so that fact may not have fully registered on them yet), but at any rate boosting Int seems more common than boosting Con, because Int matters on every single round of every fight whereas Con only matters if you get hit.


The thing is that lore skills are pretty much a one-man job. You're almost certainly not going to hit a situation where not having Arcana will lock you out of a scene- certainly nothing like not having good social skills. Nor are you likely to get in trouble if some party members fail, like Stealth. Being an expert is, well, a single role that doesn't really need everyone to dabble.

You can, however, have situations where relying on one guy's knowledge makes you vulnerable. For example, if the DM has you roll Intelligence (Nature) checks to learn something about unicorns, but doesn't tell you how well you rolled [there are various techniques to conceal this from the player], then when he tells most of the party (with -1 to +2 to nature) that unicorns are peaceful animals who love virgins and purity, and he tells the one guy with +9 that unicorns are actually horses infested with brain-worms who must bathe in the blood of virgins once a year to retain their powers... does that +9 guy really know what he's talking about or did he just roll poorly enough that he's swallowing erudite lies? If on the other hand you have three guys with +9 and two of them agree that yes, unicorns really are parasite-infested virgin-blood-dependent monsters, you can probably count on them to know what they're talking about. (The third guy says that unicorns per se don't exist as a real species, but are the daylight-immune form of powerful vampires. He probably did just roll poorly, right?)

[Hrugner]

We'll use intelligence to let characters behave in a way that's just a little less stupid. Give them some meta-rule awareness of how the world works.

Include these things under investigation:
- determine the DC of a check before attempting it.
- if you've used your investigation to determine the DC of an action out of combat, you have advantage on the check of the action whose DC you have determined.
- roll investigation to check dice results on stealth, disguise and similar rolls giving you a chance to retry the roll if there is time to do so.

Something for charisma to let charismatic characters seem less dopey.
-on a failed roll a proficient character can use their reaction to make an intimidate, deception or performance check to play off a failure as a deliberate warning-shot or flourish. If it's a saving throw, the player can use deception to appear as if they made the save.

That shouldn't be too bad.

[Slipperychicken]

You can, however, have situations where relying on one guy's knowledge makes you vulnerable. For example, if the DM has you roll Intelligence (Nature) checks to learn something about unicorns, but doesn't tell you how well you rolled [there are various techniques to conceal this from the player], then when he tells most of the party (with -1 to +2 to nature) that unicorns are peaceful animals who love virgins and purity, and he tells the one guy with +9 that unicorns are actually horses infested with brain-worms who must bathe in the blood of virgins once a year to retain their powers... does that +9 guy really know what he's talking about or did he just roll poorly enough that he's swallowing erudite lies? If on the other hand you have three guys with +9 and two of them agree that yes, unicorns really are parasite-infested virgin-blood-dependent monsters, you can probably count on them to know what they're talking about. (The third guy says that unicorns per se don't exist as a real species, but are the daylight-immune form of powerful vampires. He probably did just roll poorly, right?)

If your specialist says one thing and your laypeople say another, you go with the specialist. That's why you have him around in the first place. The game's math bears this out.



If we assume a DC 15 check, the chance of three laypeople (+1 modifier means 35% chance to pass, 65% chance to fail) all passing at once is 4%. The chance of all of them getting it right while the specialist fails (+9 modifier = 75% to pass, 25% to fail) is about 1%.

The chance of all three laypeople being wrong (.65^3 = 27.5%) while the specialist is right (75%) is equal to 20%. I'm putting my money on the specialist.

[MaxWilson]

If your specialist says one thing and your laypeople say another, you go with the specialist. That's why you have him around in the first place. The game's math bears this out.



If we assume a DC 15 check, the chance of three laypeople (+1 modifier means 35% chance to pass, 65% chance to fail) all passing at once is 4%. The chance of all of them getting it right while the specialist fails (+9 modifier = 75% to pass, 25% to fail) is about 1%.

The chance of all three laypeople being wrong (.65^3 = 27.5%) while the specialist is right (75%) is equal to 20%. I'm putting my money on the specialist.

You're neglecting the chance that all of them are wrong. The specialist has a ???% chance of being wrong. Does that result sound more like an accurate result or a crit fail of some kind? Bayesian reasoning suggests that it might be a failure. (And maybe the DC wasn't 15, hence the unknown percentage chance of being wrong.)

Before you start killing unicorns for being brain worm parasites maybe you'd like a second opinion from another expert. That's the point--having another expert reduces uncertainty in this scenario, which reduces risk and increases survival rates. Worth doing.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Intelligence is actually fine. All I add is bonus Languages based on Int mod.

[Kryx]

Intelligence is actually fine.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6UBpHgaXFDNAuttm/giphy.gif

[Giant2005]

I'm firmly in the camp that it's more useful to dabble in Cha/social skills than it is to dabble in Int/lore skills, though.

I fall into the other camp.
The way I figure it, with 3 classes that have strong incentive to have a high Charisma vs only 1 for Intelligence, your party is far more likely to already have Charisma checks well covered. If I have spare points, I'm going to put them into Intelligence because it is more likely for the group to need it.
Of course, that is assuming that I have no idea what my fellow players will be playing. If there is a Wizard or two in the bunch and no Charisma users, then obviously I'd flip that around and put my spare points into Cha. If there are no Int or Cha users, I'd probably go with Cha then too.

As for house rules to make Int better, I think that could be achieved by simply creating more classes that use Int as a primary or secondary ability. Although I am using the term "simply" rather loosely there considering how time consuming creating classes can be.
Another solution is to add more value to the actual skills (or at least one of the skills). I like the idea of testing a character's passive (or active at the expense of their action) Investigation vs the enemy's AC. If the Investigation result beats the enemy's AC, then that character increases their crit range against that enemy by 1 for a number of rounds equal to how many points they beat the AC by. In the case of their passive Investigation beating the enemy's AC, that would increase their crit range against that enemy for the duration of the fight.

[RickAllison]

What do playgrounders think about making Intelligence reduce the downtime needed to pick up new languages/tools? I was thinking of taking the modifier times 20 days. Someone who has 20 Int can thus figure it out in half the time, someone with 12 could do it in 180 days, and someone who dumped it would take 220 days.

[Giant2005]

What do playgrounders think about making Intelligence reduce the downtime needed to pick up new languages/tools? I was thinking of taking the modifier times 20 days. Someone who has 20 Int can thus figure it out in half the time, someone with 12 could do it in 180 days, and someone who dumped it would take 220 days.

Anything that speeds up that process would certainly be appreciated, but I think it would just amount to being a bonus to those who took intelligence, rather than act as an incentive to encourage people to take intelligence.
The bottom line is that if it doesn't effect combat, people just don't care. Take Constitution for example - it doesn't do anything that isn't combat related and yet it is always a favored attribute, right behind a class's primary stat.

[RickAllison]

Anything that speeds up that process would certainly be appreciated, but I think it would just amount to being a bonus to those who took intelligence, rather than act as an incentive to encourage people to take intelligence.
The bottom line is that if it doesn't effect combat, people just don't care. Take Constitution for example - it doesn't do anything that isn't combat related and yet it is always a favored attribute, right behind a class's primary stat.

It's usually used to win drinking contests! And to hold your breath, and... Nope, drinking and breath-holding are all that come to mind.

[MrFahrenheit]

What do playgrounders think about making Intelligence reduce the downtime needed to pick up new languages/tools? I was thinking of taking the modifier times 20 days. Someone who has 20 Int can thus figure it out in half the time, someone with 12 could do it in 180 days, and someone who dumped it would take 220 days.

This...is fantastic. Two party members of mine bought every single tool kit in the game last time they got a big loot haul before the party wound their way to a metropolis. Of course, one died and the other dumped int.

[DanyBallon]

In the next game I'll be DM, we want to try to link initiative to Int instead of Dex. We will justify it as quick thinking that allow to act faster.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What do playgrounders think about making Intelligence reduce the downtime needed to pick up new languages/tools? I was thinking of taking the modifier times 20 days. Someone who has 20 Int can thus figure it out in half the time, someone with 12 could do it in 180 days, and someone who dumped it would take 220 days.
I like the idea, but I think you wrote it wrong? Unless you mean for higher modifiers to mean longer leaning

[MaxWilson]

It's usually used to win drinking contests! And to hold your breath, and... Nope, drinking and breath-holding are all that come to mind.

I would also use it as the baseline stat for physical seduction. Attractiveness ~= pleasant personality + healthy constitution.

[RickAllison]

I like the idea, but I think you wrote it wrong? Unless you mean for higher modifiers to mean longer leaning

In the first sentence, I said it would reduce the training time. The next just clarified by how much. So it would be:

1: 300 days (how did the PC get this low, and does he have the brainpower to use them?)
2-3: 280
4-5: 260
6-7: 240
8-9: 220
10-11: 200 (base)
12-13: 180
14-15: 160
16-17: 140
18-19: 120
20: 100 days

So the formula would be 200 - 20*Int. Negative modifiers would then add to it.

[Regitnui]

I would also use it as the baseline stat for physical seduction. Attractiveness ~= pleasant personality + healthy constitution.

So instead of "check out my Charisma stats" it's "I've got a nice pair of Constitutions"?


In the next game I'll be DM, we want to try to link initiative to Int instead of Dex. We will justify it as quick thinking that allow to act faster.

I'm going to borrow this. It makes a certain amount of sense to me.

[Archmage_Storm]

To encourage higher Int scores (or more use of it in general), encourage Investigation checks. While I am running Out of the Abyss, I have added a sticky note to the DM screen labeled "make perception and Investigation checks, and you may just survive". Now they use the checks frequently. Especially after the barbarian fell into a pudding pit.

[Demonic Spoon]

In the next game I'll be DM, we want to try to link initiative to Int instead of Dex. We will justify it as quick thinking that allow to act faster.

One thing to think about is how this works with monsters, particularly those with very low INT. You might need to make a distinction between animalistic monsters and intelligent monsters - animalistic monsters, driven by instinct, use DEX for initiative. Intelligent monsters (and PCs, and NPCs) use INT for initiative.

You might also consider how it affects assassin rogues. While I generally dislike D&D's "each class only cares about one, maybe two ability scores" philosophy, you might consider giving some kind of initiative boost to rogues, or at least assassin rogues, to ensure that they can still get off assassinate

Though I do like the solution. While I am a strong proponent of frequently using INT skill checks, being useful for skill checks isn't enough.

[Democratus]

I break initiative ties with Int.

Ties seem to happen quite often.

[Grey Watcher]

I've only played under a couple of DMs, but they'be generally fouND uses for Int. Monster Knowledge rolls ate a common example. Basically, if you hit the DC you get to ask the DM one question about the creature (eg "Does fire hurt it?" or "Is it Undead?") For each 5 (or whatever number you deem appropriate) you beat the DC by, you get an additional question. A natural 20 was often "Here, look at the stat block yourself", though that might be a bit much.

[DanyBallon]

One thing to think about is how this works with monsters, particularly those with very low INT. You might need to make a distinction between animalistic monsters and intelligent monsters - animalistic monsters, driven by instinct, use DEX for initiative. Intelligent monsters (and PCs, and NPCs) use INT for initiative.

You might also consider how it affects assassin rogues. While I generally dislike D&D's "each class only cares about one, maybe two ability scores" philosophy, you might consider giving some kind of initiative boost to rogues, or at least assassin rogues, to ensure that they can still get off assassinate

Though I do like the solution. While I am a strong proponent of frequently using INT skill checks, being useful for skill checks isn't enough.

I don't even bother with this, as I'll use monster initiative as is. This change will only affect the players. And to be honest they won't bother because they don't know the stats of monster I use :)

[mer.c]

My favored Int-based Initiative tweak is just to let all characters use either Dex or Int. It gets around the wild-vs.-intelligent question and keeps dex-based builds from being powered down, without adding extra complications. Everyone just writes whichever is higher in their Initiative box. Also, using the off-stat as a tie-breaker is a wonderful suggestion!

I also love RickAllison's idea for reducing downtime learning times. I think I will shamelessly steal that, thank you! :smallsmile:

[Notafish]

I think it's OK that not all ability scores are equal, but I wish it would be easier to RP a moderately intelligent martial character without sacrificing stats and/or ignoring the character sheet outside of encounters. I realize that it goes against tradition, but verbally specifying "normal" mental scores as an 8 and making "profoundly stupid" an optional background flaw for those people who actually want to play as Lurch the Barbarian (or an idiot savant wizard) would probably do it for me.

[MaxWilson]

I think it's OK that not all ability scores are equal, but I wish it would be easier to RP a moderately intelligent martial character without sacrificing stats and/or ignoring the character sheet outside of encounters. I realize that it goes against tradition, but verbally specifying "normal" mental scores as an 8 and making "profoundly stupid" an optional background flaw for those people who actually want to play as Lurch the Barbarian (or an idiot savant wizard) would probably do it for me.

It might be simpler to just make 10 or 12 the starting value for your point buy arrays, but require the usual number of points to buy it up past that.

[Regitnui]

8 isn't irredeemably stupid, just a little slow-witted. A PC with 8 Int can be justified as someone who doesn't learn quickly, but can remember everything they have learned; they're operating off memories as opposed to analysis.

[Vogonjeltz]

From a strictly mechanical perspective, low Int pretty much gives you a penalty to some of the worst skills in the game. And they get Investigation. That's about it. There are corner cases like the rare Intelligence save, but most characters will function identically whether they have Intelligence 8 or 20.

Investigation (and other knowledge proficiency attempts) are as important as the players and DM make them.

[Tanarii]

It's usually used to win drinking contests! And to hold your breath, and... Nope, drinking and breath-holding are all that come to mind.
Endurance running or swimming. The former is pretty important if the DM uses chase scenes.

Of course, chase scenes are often just an extension of combat.

[RickAllison]

Endurance running or swimming. The former is pretty important if the DM uses chase scenes.

Of course, chase scenes are often just an extension of combat.

Oh yes, I had a chase scene with a T-rex. Lots of fun there, tried taking a bite out of my tail feathers.

[Slipperychicken]

8 isn't irredeemably stupid, just a little slow-witted. A PC with 8 Int can be justified as someone who doesn't learn quickly, but can remember everything they have learned; they're operating off memories as opposed to analysis.

I wouldn't even call it stupid. It's equivalent to about an 88 IQ, which is only somewhat below average. It's not even one standard deviation under the mean. That's in the range of intellect associated with someone doing manual labor on a farm or in a factory. Not exactly the brightest bulb in the box, but these people aren't the drooling idiots that INT 8 is portrayed as.

I think that people portray INT 8 as being Lenny because that's the lowest value PCs are allowed to have in it. To represent that kind of severely-deficient intellect you'd need INT 4 or lower, since that would actually be two standard deviations below the mean (69 is the maximum IQ at which person can be classified as intellectually disabled).

[JoeJ]

I think that people portray INT 8 as being Lenny because that's the lowest value PCs are allowed to have in it. To represent that kind of severely-deficient intellect you'd need INT 4 or lower, since that would actually be two standard deviations below the mean (69 is the maximum IQ at which person can be classified as intellectually disabled).

The lowest Intelligence that PCs can have isn't 8, it's 3.

[Giant2005]

I wouldn't even call it stupid. It's equivalent to about an 88 IQ, which is only somewhat below average. It's not even one standard deviation under the mean. That's in the range of intellect associated with someone doing manual labor on a farm or in a factory. Not exactly the brightest bulb in the box, but these people aren't the drooling idiots that INT 8 is portrayed as.

I think that people portray INT 8 as being Lenny because that's the lowest value PCs are allowed to have in it. To represent that kind of severely-deficient intellect you'd need INT 4 or lower, since that would actually be two standard deviations below the mean (69 is the maximum IQ at which person can be classified as intellectually disabled).

The average roll of 4d6d1 is 12.24 and humans have +1 to Int. Therefore, the average Int for a human is 13.24.
According to this (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqbasics.aspx), the average human IQ is 100, so therefore that 100 is the equivalent of DnD's 13.24.
The lowest natural Int for a human in DnD is 4 (minimum roll +1 racial bonus), and as per that same graph, the minimum human IQ is 40. Therefore, that 40 is the equivalent of DnD's 4.
An 8, is 43.29% of the way between the minimum (4) and the average (13.24), which places it below the 70 IQ mark on the graph which is the lowest category that has been classified. If you check the table further down on the page, that corresponds to "Definite feeble-mindedness"

[Cybren]

The average roll of 4d6d1 is 12.24 and humans have +1 to Int. Therefore, the average Int for a human is 13.24.
According to this (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqbasics.aspx), the average human IQ is 100, so therefore that 100 is the equivalent of DnD's 13.24.
The lowest natural Int for a human in DnD is 4 (minimum roll +1 racial bonus), and as per that same graph, the minimum human IQ is 40. Therefore, that 40 is the equivalent of DnD's 4.
An 8, is 43.29% of the way between the minimum (4) and the average (13.24), which places it below the 70 IQ mark on the graph which is the lowest category that has been classified. If you check the table further down on the page, that corresponds to "Definite feeble-mindedness"

You're making the mistake of thinking PCs are average.

[JackPhoenix]

The average roll of 4d6d1 is 12.24 and humans have +1 to Int. Therefore, the average Int for a human is 13.24.
According to this (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqbasics.aspx), the average human IQ is 100, so therefore that 100 is the equivalent of DnD's 13.24.
The lowest natural Int for a human in DnD is 4 (minimum roll +1 racial bonus), and as per that same graph, the minimum human IQ is 40. Therefore, that 40 is the equivalent of DnD's 4.
An 8, is 43.29% of the way between the minimum (4) and the average (13.24), which places it below the 70 IQ mark on the graph which is the lowest category that has been classified. If you check the table further down on the page, that corresponds to "Definite feeble-mindedness"

4d6k3 is standard for player characters, who are in general above average populace. Typical human would be commoner (all 10's) with human racial modifier added (so, all 11's)

[Giant2005]

This thread inspired me to make a new homebrew (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/182816/Intelligence-Matters).
It adds a bunch of new intelligence-related subclasses, rules, feats, and spells. Check it out and let me know if it is in need of adjustment (or even better rate and/or review it on the site!).

[Kryx]

Giant, I looked through the homebrew you made, but it doesn't really seem to solve the issues around Intelligence

It offers some more intelligence options, but doesn't fix the underlying issues of there only being 8 intelligence saving throws in the game.

Without revamping saving throws it can't really be fixed imo.

[Giant2005]

It offers some more intelligence options, but doesn't fix the underlying issues of there only being 8 intelligence saving throws in the game.

I don't think that is really a very major issue though. When deciding what abilities to focus on, saving throws are only a secondary consideration at best. If these other options make intelligence a primary consideration, then the secondary considerations won't matter so much - people will take and use intelligence anyway. That is the theory at least.

[Kryx]

If all current Wisdom saving throws were Intelligence saving throws I guarantee that players would definitely boost Int over Wis/Cha unless their classes relied on one of the others. It is a rather big factor imo.

Another factor is the skills that have been mentioned. Perception is an incredibly powerful skill. DMs putting focus on investigation and not allowing perception to search (as designed) helps as well as making knowledge checks rather informative.

Adding bonuses such as "you know another language" is nice, but not really compelling imo. The skill part is more compelling, but for most people the chance to succeed vs hold person is more important than an extra skill. Beyond that you'd just be giving Int based classes tons of skills while other classes don't bother investing much. I think skills could help as they did in 3.X, it just doesn't feel like enough help.

[djreynolds]

I like to throw people a bonus.

If I see you using intelligence skills and deducing stuff and problem solving, I will throw you 1 or 2 points of intelligence as a gift.

But the problem is, most people do not play their mental stats, its way too difficult to do. So I don't worry about it.

Otherwise you are stuck saying, you can't roll for this without a proficiency in this skill.

And Mr, Kryx is correct, with 8 saves no one is going to buff intelligence, nor are they going to invest in ASI for skills when you can grab a rogue or bard for expertise.

It sucks, but the game has always been like this. If you roll big, you win.

And with limited ASI/feats its even more difficult. And with the standard array, something is going to be an 8 or 10.

The other thing is the game is balanced and any new feat throws it out of whack.

You could try saying, that for every so many points of intelligence you can add that to proficiency, skills and attacks and even saves but then something else gets dumped.

It cannot be fixed, and for the most part aside from the advanced gamers on this forum, and other forums, I find players will actually often want intelligence in the characters, and it has nothing to do with numbers or min/maxing, they just like it.

Honestly, the skills portion of 5E, is an issue. I like, because we just play. But in 3E an investment in intelligence was more pronounced.

If you do not like the skills in 5E, simply incorporate the skill system of 3E and tweak it, its your game. That's the only true fix.

[Giant2005]

If all current Wisdom saving throws were Intelligence saving throws I guarantee that players would definitely boost Int over Wis/Cha unless their classes relied on one of the others. It is a rather big factor imo.

But that is the point. A Wizard is very unlikely to choose to focus on Wisdom over Intelligence, even though Wisdom is much stronger in terms of saving throws. It is just a matter of making other characters have reason to care about Intelligence just like the Wizard - if they have that much reason to favor intelligence, then the saving throws are less of an issue.

[djreynolds]

But that is the point. A Wizard is very unlikely to choose to focus on Wisdom over Intelligence, even though Wisdom is much stronger in terms of saving throws. It is just a matter of making other characters have reason to care about Intelligence just like the Wizard - if they have that much reason to favor intelligence, then the saving throws are less of an issue.

You're experienced gamer.

How do you enforce it? Do you make players play their stats for the sake of the game? Perhaps the removal of mental skills is better, and the DM decides you roll intelligence or wisdom or charisma ability checks.

Its tough because the game, tied many skills to wisdom, I would figure survival in real life is based on intelligence.

Is getting rid of the proficiency bonus terrible, and just replacing it with intelligence bonus. Doesn't surviving the dragon and defeating him have as much to do with intelligence as experience does, doesn't it take intelligence to make any sense of what you just experienced.

A fighter with an 8 in charisma, but with a +6 in proficiency say in persuasion has learned through experience that sometimes talking with troops gets better results than yelling at them.

The value of intelligence is difficult in PvP to judge. If all your players dumped intelligence perhaps you only tell them a percentage of the story. If all you players dump intelligence, perhaps they only know there is a mob of goblins but not how many.

How do you gauge intelligence in real life, versus charisma, life's experiences?

It may just be too tough to gauge.

[Giant2005]

How do you enforce it? Do you make players play their stats for the sake of the game? Perhaps the removal of mental skills is better, and the DM decides you roll intelligence or wisdom or charisma ability checks.

I was referring to my homebrew.
Although, I do try to encourage making players play their stats but enforce is a much too stronger word. I encourage them with humor - I make jokes related to their character's flaws and before long they join in. Through humor they find the fun their character's weaknesses and willingly choose to play to those weaknesses.

[Kryx]

But that is the point. A Wizard is very unlikely to choose to focus on Wisdom over Intelligence, even though Wisdom is much stronger in terms of saving throws. It is just a matter of making other characters have reason to care about Intelligence just like the Wizard - if they have that much reason to favor intelligence, then the saving throws are less of an issue.
Ya, that is a class that has it as a primary stat.

I was talking about Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue. If one of those has to choose their tertiary stat they often choose between Wis, Int, or Cha. And as it stands Wis wins out mechanically.

[djreynolds]

I was referring to my homebrew.
Although, I do try to encourage making players play their stats but enforce is a much too stronger word. I encourage them with humor - I make jokes related to their character's flaws and before long they join in. Through humor they find the fun their character's weaknesses and willingly choose to play to those weaknesses.

I like your homebrews, very very cool.

I find if I ponder this subject, the game unravels. How is religion not a wisdom based skill and medicine not an intelligence based skill? It just falls apart.

We don't metagame, we just roll. My cleric is the voice of the party, just because in real life I'm an *********, and his charisma is an 8. But it seems reasonable, because who would trust, the rest of the scoundrels in my party...... I don't persuade or intimidate many people.... ever. But still.

I would prefer if mental skills just weren't attached to abilities because these are also attached to casting stats. Why is there no reasoning skill for intelligence characters, or the good old dad talk for wisdom characters.

The dexterity and strength stuff is palatable.

But I would just make the number proficient skills is simply attached to intelligence. This your intelligence and this is the amount of skills you could be proficient in, plus your background. Seems valid, could work. So a rogue would need a 14 in intelligence to get 4 skills.

[Kryx]

Why is there no reasoning skill for intelligence characters, or the good old dad talk for wisdom characters.
Investigation



But I would just make the number proficient skills is simply attached to intelligence. This your intelligence and this is the amount of skills you could be proficient in, plus your background. Seems valid, could work. So a rogue would need a 14 in intelligence to get 4 skills.
The problem with this system is you then have fighters and barbarians who only do combat and never do skills. That is why 5e moved away from intelligence determining skills.

[djreynolds]

I mean a social skill based on intelligence.

Like I said, you can't fix it. But when you casting stat is attached to it, you make end with cookie cutting. I don't mind it.

But intelligence is undervalued, unless it is your casting stat.

I can live with the system. We just play.

[Tanarii]

But intelligence is undervalued, unless it is your casting stat.
And that's mostly because it's underutilized by DMs and written adventures. And conversely, Wis (and sometimes Cha) skills are overutilized (and poorly so). Especially Perception and Intuition when it comes to things you should have automatically noticed without a check.

For some reason, Investigation almost never seems to get the same abuse in terms of things you should have automatically figured out without a check. And of course Perception is often mistakenly used to find things that should be Investigation checks to locate, most commonly when searching rooms. Since its underused, other skills are substituted for it regularly, and other skills are overused, the stat it's based on becomes less valuable.

[djreynolds]

If they could just tie something to intelligence other than casting, people would use it.

But as I said before, in the games I play, these players want to have a decent intelligence and it has nothing to do with dice rolls. Perhaps that's enough.

[Tanarii]

If they could just tie something to intelligence other than casting, people would use it.If by "they could just tie something to intelligence other than casting" you mean "the DM actually uses the rules which include lots of things for Intelligence other than casting", then yeah, you're right, people would use it.