Addressing intelligence's relative uselessness

[aardvarkh2o]

Hey everyone,

I've just been reading up on D&D 5e over the last month or so, but I've played 3.5 and pathfinder for a lot longer. Overall there's some things I really like about it, some things I really don't, but I like it enough that I'm running my next game using it.

One of these mixed bags is ability score usefulness. A big problem in 3.5 was MAD, and while that's pretty much gone in 5e, it's replaced with the problem that little mechanical reason not to completely dump those stats that don't do anything for you. The biggest offenders I can see are intelligence, charisma and strength. If you're feeling particularly inclined to min-max, you could probably drop all of those for any class that doesn't have a specific ability related to it. Judging by this an article I read, dumping all three would still have less effect on your saving throws than dumping any other one ability score. As far as I can tell, intelligence is the worst off of the bunch, because besides wizards, two specializations and a couple of skills, there's no benefit for characters to have any more than 10 in the score. Certainly not if you already have a wizard in the party who can outperform you in all of those skills (Which probably won't even be on your class list)

Not to say that 3.5 didn't have this problem. Charisma dumping was its version, but it seems less severe than it is in 5e. I'm also aware that you can give the justification that you should just take that hit for the sake of roleplaying, but it'd be better if you didn't have to make such a tradeoff if you wanted to play, for example, a somewhat intelligent fighter. Hell, even a crafty, non-arcane trickster rogue won't see much gameplay benefit from their intelligence.

What I was thinking in this regard, was homebrew feats. I like how a lot of feats in 5e pretty much enable a character concept on their own, so I thought that could be a good fix. Here's some ideas I was playing around with:

1. Attacks you make with advantage add your intelligence bonus to damage
2. Add your intelligence bonus to initiative checks when you aren't surprised
3. Once per long rest, add your intelligence bonus to a saving throw. This can be after you rolled, but before you know the result.
4. Use your bonus action to gain advantage on your next attack roll. This can be used a number of times equal to your intelligence modifier, and is replenished after a short (long?) rest.

Or something not using intelligence, but bundled in with an int 13 prerequisite feat:
5. As your bonus action, make an attack roll. If it hits, it deals no damage, but the target's next attack against you has disadvantage.

Basically I'm trying to shoot for something that would primarily benefit a non-spellcasting character, and would help capture how a crafty or strategic character would fight. I'm not sure how powerful these are though, and I'm not completely sold on whether I like all of them or not. Ideally it'd be a feat like Sentinel that has several abilities bundled into it. Out of the ones I've mentioned, 1 is my favorite, and as far as I can tell it doesn't look unbalanced. I'm thinking the MAD would make for a little bit of a tradeoff, but maybe it'd make arcane tricksters and eldritch knights too strong.

My question is, how do you address this issue (If you even find it to be an issue)? Does a feat like I'm suggesting seem like a good way to respond do it, and if so, are any of the ideas I pitched balanced?

[Strill]

Zman's rule tweaks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?534238-Zman-s-5e-Tweaks-Tweaks-2-0-Weapons-and-Armor-E10-and-Monster-Manual-Expansion) gives +1 Language per INT mod, a bonus skill proficiency at 12, 16, and 20 INT, and a bonus tool proficiency at 14 and 18 INT. To compensate, Wizards start with 1 fewer skill proficiency.

I like it because it gives players a good reason to start with 12 INT, but doesn't overly reward Wizards, since Wizards are already strong enough.

I've also seen the suggestion that you use the higher of INT or DEX to determine your Initiative modifier.

[aardvarkh2o]

*snip*

Thanks for the resource, that looks really useful

[Eric Diaz]

I think you must decide first:

- Do you want intelligence to be useful to everybody?
- Or do you want intelligence to be useful to specific builds?

One idea I like is using Intelligence as tactics (as an action); getting advantage on one attack is certainly good (but not so useful for high level fighters). Preferably, you get advantage to ALL your attacks next round.

If you make an intelligence versus intelligence roll to out-maneuver a foe, you create many interesting effects:

- It becomes useful for fighters, rogues, etc.
- It becomes more useful if you're not engaged (since you have to spend an action that otherwise might be wasted, unless you have a ranged attack).
- It is not so useful for wizards (that have their own stuff to to do with a distance and don't really on attacks with advantage).
- Makes Intelligence saves way more common (say, the victim must make an Intelligence save against your save DC).
- Does not work with raging barbarians (who already have advantage anyway);
- And so on.

EDIT: and that is not that far from RAW; think of it as "mental grappling", that can be used to put a foe at disadvantage, etc. You could use a similar system for Charisma (feint), and so on.

[Kane0]

Yeah I would probably give an extra language at +1 and +4, an extra tool prof at +2 and +5 and an extra skill at +3.

Other than that maybe working Int to have a larger role in Initiative, skills or saves but those are bigger reworks.

[Strill]

Yeah I would probably give an extra language at +1 and +4, an extra tool prof at +2 and +5 and an extra skill at +3.

I disagree strongly with that arrangement, because it's directly counter-productive to the OP's goal of making INT more generally useful, without overly benefiting Wizards.

Most characters are not going to start with any more than 14 INT at the most. Starting with 12 INT is often a stretch, even if there are significant benefits to INT. That means that if you want most characters to benefit from INT, and don't want to buff Wizards, you have to put major benefits at 12 INT or below, and avoid putting major benefits past 14 INT.

You've put the skill proficiency at 16 INT, which just gives Wizards +1 skill proficiency, and does nothing for non-wizards, who will never get that much INT anyway. That is why the skill proficiency needs to be at 12 or 14 INT. I think 12 INT is more appropriate.

[Kane0]

I've seen exactly one wizard at my table in the last two years, so YMMV.

[TalksAlone]

Investigation, Arcana, Religion, History and Nature are some of the best skills in the game. They may not get you out of a grapple, but in reality, if you have those skills and get to an encounter and are not surprised you should be spamming those in order to get information on the enemies you are facing. Some other proficiencies can and should also apply, like identifying a potion with an Alchemy/Herbalism to check if it really is a Healing Potion not disguised Acid, without burning a slot/wasting some minutes ritual casting Identify the spell. Same for poisons, if that scumbag is enough of a scumbag to sell poisons he is enough of a scumbag to sell regular basic poison for Purple Worm's, better take a look first. Not relying on resisted Insight rolls to know the world around you is priceless IMO.

Not that I don't think there should be more relevant stuff besides this related to Int, but too much might make it... well... too much. A more elegant solution would be devising meaningful, balanced and actual optimal spells and abilities that target it as a save. It worked for Charisma: some really good skills, good class abilities that use it and a few good, efficient spells that target it as a save made it fine. Int is alredy two thirds of the way there, IMO.

Thirdly, this imbalance between the 3 best and 3 worst stats is purely intentional design. It is so that each class can have one good and one bad save. And the skills that come from the 'bad' stats are THE most powerful. Stealth, Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand are useful, no doubt. But none of them actually disable the oponent like Athletics. Perception is very good, invaluable even. But it doesn't say what you see, only determines IF you see, unlike the Knowledge and Investigation skills. Con is the one EVERYBODY needs no matter who. But lets face it, with Cha skills you can hire/recruit/charm people to take damage for you, buy stuff for you, let you live in their houses.

That being said, some more feats for the brainy sort would be very cool.

[Talionis]

I think the tiers of important stats and less important stats was purposeful. You'll notice that each class grants proficiency with one of the 3 meaningful stats, but none grant two of thge meaningful stats, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Constitution.

I'll agree that Intelligence is the worst Sta t in 5th edition. But I'm so so so glad they untied Iintelligence from Skills. It made no sense that physical skills like acrobatics or athletics be tied to Intelligence stat.

As for making Intelligence more relevant. .. print more classes thast rely on Intelligence. Make a mundane class that revolves around Ijntelligence likke Artificer (mefium caster) and Factotum (non caster with possibly a 1/3 caster subclass. ) that would be my recommendation.

[aardvarkh2o]

I'm hearing a lot of suggestions about the skills being tied to int, and I'm not totally sure how I feel about that. It seems like to integrate that well you should modify the number of skills various classes get so that they average out to something more similar, and that'd be a bigger change than I'd want. I'd be a tad worried about players coming too close to exhausting their skill list as it is. I'm going to think about it, but at the bare minimum I think I'm going to do the language thing.


I think you must decide first:

- Do you want intelligence to be useful to everybody?
- Or do you want intelligence to be useful to specific builds?

One idea I like is using Intelligence as tactics (as an action); getting advantage on one attack is certainly good (but not so useful for high level fighters). Preferably, you get advantage to ALL your attacks next round.

If you make an intelligence versus intelligence roll to out-maneuver a foe, you create many interesting effects:

- It becomes useful for fighters, rogues, etc.
- It becomes more useful if you're not engaged (since you have to spend an action that otherwise might be wasted, unless you have a ranged attack).
- It is not so useful for wizards (that have their own stuff to to do with a distance and don't really on attacks with advantage).
- Makes Intelligence saves way more common (say, the victim must make an Intelligence save against your save DC).
- Does not work with raging barbarians (who already have advantage anyway);
- And so on.

EDIT: and that is not that far from RAW; think of it as "mental grappling", that can be used to put a foe at disadvantage, etc. You could use a similar system for Charisma (feint), and so on.

I actually like this one a lot. I think it might be a little more touchy to do, but I wonder if it'd be possible to take that mental grappling analogy even further. I like the idea of being mentally grappled in combat, your opponent has a strategy that has you off balance, and you need to figure out how to counter it (Break out of the mental grapple similar to regular grappling) to get out. I'm not sure how that'd work with the monolithic advantage/disadvantage way of buffing/debuffing though.

Taking it just as you presented it though, I'm considering putting that as an action in the game, and making a feat that gives you this:

- Add your proficiency bonus on tactics rolls
- Attacks you make with advantage add your int modifier to the damage roll

[imanidiot]

Make initiative an Intelligence check instead of Dexterity. It's a simple fix that fixes a ton of problems.

[Biggstick]

This is one of the few things I provide to my Players when they join a game that I'm the DM of. It gives a little more value to Intelligence for those considering it, and it gives Expertise to the Wizards who have high Intelligence. I give the Expertise for high Intelligence, because I feel a Wizard who has spent years and years of study learning magic would be an expert on one or two different skills.

12 - one additional Intelligence or Wisdom based skill proficiency.
14 - one additional common language, tool proficiency, vehicle proficiency, or musical
instrument proficiency.
18 - Expertise in an Intelligence or Wisdom based skill that you’re already proficient in.
20 - Expertise in an Intelligence or Wisdom based skill that you’re already proficient in.

For 18 and 20, if you don’t have a skill proficiency available to be upgraded to Expertise, you can instead become proficient in an Intelligence or Wisdom based skill of your choice.

[Malifice]

My houserule is that for every point of Int bonus, you get a free language or tool proficiency (other than theives tools) of your choice.

Also; I award inspiration for roleplaying. Dumb PCs that are played intelligently, tend not to get it.

[Spacehamster]

Make initiative an Intelligence check instead of Dexterity. It's a simple fix that fixes a ton of problems.

That would be horrible, the bumbling clumsy wizard goes before the dexterous rogue?! :O no but seriously both DEX and INT should add to initiative.

[imanidiot]

That would be horrible, the bumbling clumsy wizard goes before the dexterous rogue?! :O no but seriously both DEX and INT should add to initiative.

Manual dexterity and physical agility have nothing to do with how quickly a person can react. It's 100% mental. And mechanically it's balanced better.

[qube]

Basically I'm trying to shoot for something that would primarily benefit a non-spellcasting character, and would help capture how a crafty or strategic character would fight. I'm not sure how powerful these are though, and I'm not completely sold on whether I like all of them or not. Ideally it'd be a feat like Sentinel that has several abilities bundled into it. Out of the ones I've mentioned, 1 is my favorite, and as far as I can tell it doesn't look unbalanced. I'm thinking the MAD would make for a little bit of a tradeoff, but maybe it'd make arcane tricksters and eldritch knights too strong.hmmm ... I would make a boost feat for the battlemaster - because in essence, that's what you seem to do (esp. with suggestion 4 & 5).

Something like

Requirements: Int 13 & access to maneuvers (either by class or that feat)

Superiority die always result in a minimum equal to your intelligence mod+1.
Get extra die equal to half your intelligence modifier (rounded up).
These extra die aren't rolled, but always result in minimum damage (a.k.a. int mod +1)



Manual dexterity and physical agility have nothing to do with how quickly a person can react. It's 100% mental. And mechanically it's balanced better. It seems more 100% Wisdom (considering how both perception & insight are on wisdom) - not in one's ability to memorize stuff - but either figuring out you ran into a traps, the ability to strike just before the other guy starts his lunge, etc ...

[Unoriginal]

I guess a whole group could dump Int and then be constantly outsmarted by everyone from the average villager to the highest ranked demons.

Good luck knowing anything about nature, medicine, magical phenomenons, or religious figures, and good luck catching anyone who made a little effort to cover their tracks.

[Spacehamster]

Manual dexterity and physical agility have nothing to do with how quickly a person can react. It's 100% mental. And mechanically it's balanced better.

Reacting quickly does not help when you are a bumbling wreck tho does it? It's a combination of mind and body

[Tanarii]

The importance of Intelligence pretty much depends on the DM. If he's calling for Group Int checks, or individual Int checks that aren't one-check-to-rule-them-all, then it's really important. If he isn't, then it isn't.

Personally I'm fine with that. But the reason many players see Int as not very important falls squarely on how most DMs (and adventure paths and DDEX modules) choose to use it, with good reason. Modern Int is the old "Charisma problem" on steroids. Player knowledge substitutes. When they don't have the knowledge a single check passed by any player provides it to the entire party, resulting in the "Sage" character (to Cha's "Face"). Outside that it's sometimes used to provide a hint/clue to a puzzle, again often as a one-check-to-rule-them-all roll, where the entire party rolls and any success results in info given.

This is why it's pretty much only important for Wizard (plus 1/3s) and Trap Figure-Outers in many games. The latter being the only hard mechanical time when a pass/fail honestly comes into play.

[TheUser]

You: "What do I know about [insert creature who's weaknesses you wish to discern]."

DM: "Roll a *relevant* Intelligence check."

[PhoenixPhyre]

The importance of Intelligence pretty much depends on the DM. If he's calling for Group Int checks, or individual Int checks that aren't one-check-to-rule-them-all, then it's really important. If he isn't, then it isn't.

Personally I'm fine with that. But the reason many players see Int as not very important falls squarely on how most DMs (and adventure paths and DDEX modules) choose to use it, with good reason. Modern Int is the old "Charisma problem" on steroids. Player knowledge substitutes. When they don't have the knowledge a single check passed by any player provides it to the entire party, resulting in the "Sage" character (to Cha's "Face"). Outside that it's sometimes used to provide a hint/clue to a puzzle, again often as a one-check-to-rule-them-all roll, where the entire party rolls and any success results in info given.

This is why it's pretty much only important for Wizard (plus 1/3s) and Trap Figure-Outers in many games. The latter being the only hard mechanical time when a pass/fail honestly comes into play.

Right. As with so many other things, the failure to provide interesting consequences for failures causes distortions in the use of abilities and skills. I'm getting more and more convinced that the big reason people have issues with the ability check system (and the associated abilities) is that they've never learned how the system is supposed to work. They're using a half-guess, half-old-memory system that's neither fish nor fowl. Played as intended, intelligence is as useful for anything (unless you're playing a pure beat-em-up style).

[mephnick]

The importance of Intelligence pretty much depends on the DM. If he's calling for Group Int checks, or individual Int checks that aren't one-check-to-rule-them-all, then it's really important. If he isn't, then it isn't.

Personally I'm fine with that. But the reason many players see Int as not very important falls squarely on how most DMs (and adventure paths and DDEX modules) choose to use it, with good reason. Modern Int is the old "Charisma problem" on steroids. Player knowledge substitutes. When they don't have the knowledge a single check passed by any player provides it to the entire party, resulting in the "Sage" character (to Cha's "Face"). Outside that it's sometimes used to provide a hint/clue to a puzzle, again often as a one-check-to-rule-them-all roll, where the entire party rolls and any success results in info given.

This is why it's pretty much only important for Wizard (plus 1/3s) and Trap Figure-Outers in many games. The latter being the only hard mechanical time when a pass/fail honestly comes into play.

The "one check to rule them all" has always been the major problem with D&D knowledge checks, which is why I now use passive knowledge for anything that isn't actively researching/doing something. Want to perform a religious rite in a ceremony? Active religion check for one person. Want to know what kind of demon that is? I'll tell you if your passive religion is high enough. The "everyone rolls and one dude randomly rolls high so everyone know all information" thing kills knowledge checks.

[Biggstick]

Manual dexterity and physical agility have nothing to do with how quickly a person can react. It's 100% mental. And mechanically it's balanced better.

No matter how quickly you can mentally process what's going on around you, you still have to physically react. Manual Dexterity and physically agility have everything to do with how quickly one can react.

Being more intelligent doesn't make you more likely to ad to first in a combat situation. It makes you more likely to be able to recall information about responding in combat.

[Zman]

Zman's rule tweaks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?534238-Zman-s-5e-Tweaks-Tweaks-2-0-Weapons-and-Armor-E10-and-Monster-Manual-Expansion) gives +1 Language per INT mod, a bonus skill proficiency at 12, 16, and 20 INT, and a bonus tool proficiency at 14 and 18 INT. To compensate, Wizards start with 1 fewer skill proficiency.

I like it because it gives players a good reason to start with 12 INT, but doesn't overly reward Wizards, since Wizards are already strong enough.

I've also seen the suggestion that you use the higher of INT or DEX to determine your Initiative modifier.

I'll second this suggestion, haha.

I've found it really incentivized Int 12, and players really feel any attempt to dump Int. An extra language has a small effect, but greatly appreciated. An extra skill is a big incentive, and for many characters a worthwhile investment.

[Tanarii]

The "one check to rule them all" has always been the major problem with D&D knowledge checks, which is why I now use passive knowledge for anything that isn't actively researching/doing something. Want to perform a religious rite in a ceremony? Active religion check for one person. Want to know what kind of demon that is? I'll tell you if your passive religion is high enough. The "everyone rolls and one dude randomly rolls high so everyone know all information" thing kills knowledge checks.I just give the players the information out of combat, provided they take the required time, and unless there's no possibly way their character could know it. Because of the automatic success rule.

But I call for Int checks any time the player has forgotten some previous information obtained earlier in the adventure, or needs a reminder about something that has occurred, in a stressful situation. Because IMO that's what the skill is about in 5e. Recalling something already known. Not state of the world. Or in this case, state of the character (do you/don't you know X).

[Nifft]

Make initiative an Intelligence check instead of Dexterity. It's a simple fix that fixes a ton of problems.

That's very clever.



Reacting quickly does not help when you are a bumbling wreck tho does it? It's a combination of mind and body

AC and the totally-not-Reflex save are still Dex, so this checks out.

Being high-Int means you react to the situation faster, but you might not be able to actually get out of the way (since that's "body" = Dex).

Cool.

[Biggstick]

Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason. Intelligence Checks. An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence checks.

This is what's listed under the description of intelligence and intelligence checks in chapter 7 of the PHB. Nothing written here makes me think it would help a PC act faster in their Initiative.

Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition. Wisdom Checks. A Wisdom check might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person. The Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Wisdom checks.

This is what's listed under Wisdom in chapter 7 of the PHB. Now where Intelligence didn't have anything that made me think a PC would act faster in combat, Wisdom does. Reading body language, understanding or picking up on someone's intentions, and noticing something going on in the environment, all make me think of something that would positively affect Initiative.

Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. Dexterity Checks. A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing. The Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Dexterity checks.

This is what's listed under Dexterity in chapter 7 of the PHB. This absolutely represents how a PC might have a higher Initiative.

Based on what the PHB has listed regarding Inteligence, I don't think it has anything to do with Initiative. If anything Wisdom has more merit in being considered for a bonus to Initiative, based on how they're described in the PHB.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've also seen the suggestion that you use the higher of INT or DEX to determine your Initiative modifier. Not a bad idea, I'd like to see Dex and or Int as options (as we have Dex or Str for grapple escapes, right) but I think this will tend to benefit controller type wizards considerably. :smallwink:

My houserule is that for every point of Int bonus, you get a free language or tool proficiency (other than theives tools) of your choice. I like this idea.
Reacting quickly does not help when you are a bumbling wreck tho does it? It's a combination of mind and body Agreed. I'd offer that "int or dex for initiative" might be a good path ahead.

[InspectorG]

IMO:

Intelligence is meta-gamed too much. The player knows what combo of skills/abilities/feats is optimal. The char likely would not with an Int of 8.

If i were DM'ing a hardcore or competitive campaign, players would need to roll an INT check when deciding on char progression related to Abilities, Feats, or Skills. Fail the check and you default to an ASI or less optima-more physical Feat.

Or, if char wants those combos of skils/abilities/feats and isnt smart enough to figure it out themselves, they could pay an expert to try to retake the INT check.(not everyone is coachable)

Ive seen way to many athletes who had the athleticism to be Pro, but were just too dumb to use skills in tandem.

Strength pales compared to Dex because of the AC bonus. I think the fix is more in 'nerfing' Dex than buffing STR.
AC from heavy armor implies it is used to absorb/deflect incoming damage. The char can be more stationary while doing so and intheory would open more chances for counter attacks with physical weapons.

Dex as AC implies the char uses mobility and timing to evade. This also implies movement.

So i would homebrew that for AC from DEX to be effective, the char needs to move 5ft per incoming attack. They could move back into a previously occupied spot but may trigger Opportunities from enemies. If Dex char cant move, AC(from Dex) is lost until mobility is regained.

Charisma is a funny one.
It can make a nameless mook memorable or a person of great skill very forgettable.

Charisma inspires others to follow you and to like you and to want to be in your good graces. People that like you(or rather find great appeal in your image) will often go out of their way to help you or promote your reputation. They will adopt your viewpoints. They will give more credence to your views and advice.

So as a dump stat the opposite should happen.
Average Cha is pretty 'meh' and forgettable. You basically blend into the background noise of all the other 'nobodies'.

But a penalized Cha should promote public ire, create doubt in the char where none is warranted(displays of skill are discounted as luck),
often Scapegoated, viewed as stupid or intimidating, less likely to get public/local guvment approval, ostracism, stereotyped, or lacks social graces.

Not to mention the RP aspects such as: personality that is less than pleasant, says the wrong things at the wrong time, social faux pas, un-attractiveness, comes off as devious or deviant, etc...


Granted, its up to the Dm for the granularity on realism vs abstract in their game but if you want all the stats to have more comparative value then the penalties for dump stats should likely be a bit more realistic.

Plus, they could inspire some nice RP.

[Malifice]

Manual dexterity and physical agility have nothing to do with how quickly a person can react. It's 100% mental. And mechanically it's balanced better.

If I had to test the reflexes of an Olympic Gold medallist gymnast (Dexterity 20) versus Albert Einstein (Intelligence 20) I know who I would have my money on.


As a hint it ain't the physics guy.

[Findulidas]

Well if your GM makes good use of knowledge skills and even more importantly investigation, then its not as bad I guess. Puzzle heavy campaigns are rightfully more important here. Often my dm lets high int characters realize that something might be wrong/hidden in a room and with investigation you can figure it out.

There is more than battle.

[Eric Diaz]

I actually like this one a lot. I think it might be a little more touchy to do, but I wonder if it'd be possible to take that mental grappling analogy even further. I like the idea of being mentally grappled in combat, your opponent has a strategy that has you off balance, and you need to figure out how to counter it (Break out of the mental grapple similar to regular grappling) to get out. I'm not sure how that'd work with the monolithic advantage/disadvantage way of buffing/debuffing though.

Taking it just as you presented it though, I'm considering putting that as an action in the game, and making a feat that gives you this:

- Add your proficiency bonus on tactics rolls
- Attacks you make with advantage add your int modifier to the damage roll

Cool, that is the idea! My original intention is to let advantage/disadvantage from superior tactics to last for one single round, but it might work even with more powerful rules for "mental grappling". I would avoid making this stronger than actual grappling. It probably deserves some playtesting.

I'm not sure about damage; it seems balanced enough, I've never tried it, I think it also deserves some playtesting.


Manual dexterity and physical agility have nothing to do with how quickly a person can react. It's 100% mental. And mechanically it's balanced better.

On one ahnd I agree - my own RPG has separate stats for "DEX" and "AGI". OTOH.... AC is based on dexterity, so it obviously the ability that determines how quickly a person can react.

[snickersnax]

I like giving bonus languages and skills for intelligence as well, but to prevent it being a dump stat, I give penalty of -1 language and skill for an 8-9 intelligence.

[Gurifu]

Intelligence, Strength, and Charisma are equally useless. If your build doesn't attack with it, you don't benefit from it. Intelligence isn't any more useless than the other two, you're just used to it being the best stat in the game in 3.5, so you notice it more. Charisma is worse, and strength's uselessness makes less sense in context.

[Nifft]

Intelligence, Strength, and Charisma are equally useless. If your build doesn't attack with it, you don't benefit from it.

Untrue in my experience.

Intelligence problems are always solved by ONE person having the skill. If one person knows the answer, they share that answer -- duplicating the information is free.

Strength problems are usually solved serially, by EACH person. If one person climbs a wall, that doesn't get everyone else over the wall for free.

Charisma is a mixed bag. Some problems can be solved by ONE character ("designated talky person"), other times EACH of the PCs need to plausibly pull off a disguise and/or bluff. Some DMs only use the former, which could lead to your perception about Charisma, but that's not universal.

[wilhelmdubdub]

I had an idea that when I start a campaign next time as a DM at session 0 have each player make an intelligence (history) check. Then have a write-up prepared for each player based on their background on how much they know about what is going on in your setting. Then some characters can dialogue among themselves on what they know. To me it makes sense that wizards, clerics, and bards would have a larger world-view compared to the barbarians in the party and would give them a leg up on steering the party on what to do for the first few sessions.

[Sindeloke]

Strength problems are usually solved serially, by EACH person. If one person climbs a wall, that doesn't get everyone else over the wall for free.

If your party has a rope, Strength problems require only one competent person. Many Dex problems (traps and locks for instance) are the same.

The big difference is combat. In combat you're in your own, and tripping and grappling (and concentration checks) can happen to anyone. There's no such mechanic for any mental score, apart from very rare illusions or homebrew feint vs Wisdom kind of thing. The tactical grapple for advantage is a pretty clever fix.

Out of combat you can do dependent checks to help alleviate the group check problem. Maybe the Alert fighter and the Expertise rogue can both catch the DC 20 scrying sensor spying on them from a nearby tree, because they both have passive Perception > 20. But if neither of them use magic and the party wizard isn't into divination, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for an Int check to see if either of them realize that that little white ball is actually a spell effect and not just a bird egg or a weird fungus.

[Nifft]

If your party has a rope, Strength problems require only one competent person. Many Dex problems (traps and locks for instance) are the same. Strength is only like that if you've got unlimited time.

If you're in a hurry to get: across the crevasse / over the wall / through the crowd / up the tree / away from the whirlpool / a better grip on the parts of the exploded sky-ship which are not hurtling into the lava below ... well, you're better off if you don't have to wait for someone else to succeed and get out the rope and save you.


The big difference is combat. In combat you're in your own Under time pressure, you may also be on your own.

Parallel success scales better than serial success.

[Theodoxus]

The "one check to rule them all" has always been the major problem with D&D knowledge checks, which is why I now use passive knowledge for anything that isn't actively researching/doing something. Want to perform a religious rite in a ceremony? Active religion check for one person. Want to know what kind of demon that is? I'll tell you if your passive religion is high enough. The "everyone rolls and one dude randomly rolls high so everyone know all information" thing kills knowledge checks.

This, omg, so much this. I haven't gone so far as to use passive int checks... but I think I will start.

I've been toying with the idea of using the average of Dex, Int and Wis for initiative checks. Then use Cha, Con and Str for Wounds (using a Wounds/Vitality) type system. (Yeah, charisma is kinda out there in that respect, but if one considers Wounds akin to HP, where it's a bit of luck/grit/force of personality to keep going, I think it works).

[ZorroGames]

More IN based useful classes, or subclasses where it is increasing your effectiveness would help a lot. Right now an average or less IN stat EK or AT might not need high IN if they select spells to avoid the need.

More benefits for success/costs for failures for skills that use IN sounds helpful but that seems a DM issue largely IMO.

The everybody rolls situation should be limited, may other characters only can add to the die roll their modifier (0 means just that, -1 means their chatter distracts, +3 is brilliant help.)

[Tanarii]

Strength is only like that if you've got unlimited time.

If you're in a hurry to get: across the crevasse / over the wall / through the crowd / up the tree / away from the whirlpool / a better grip on the parts of the exploded sky-ship which are not hurtling into the lava below ... well, you're better off if you don't have to wait for someone else to succeed and get out the rope and save you.

Under time pressure, you may also be on your own.
How is this different for Int or Cha checks?

I mean, I know many DMs treat those differently. But they shouldn't. If there's time to do the one thing, auto success if possible. If there's not time but it's being done repeatedly as you go along, or secret, passive. If it's a group effort, group check. Otherwise roll for your character only.

The whole "everyone rolls but one success is a group success" and "best man please step forward" things are what mess up Intelligence and Charisma checks. It actually ruins any check. Often Perception or Investigation too. But they shouldn't, because as a DM you aren't supposed to be calling for checks like that.

[90sMusic]

I come from the good ol days of intelligence granting skill points per level giving you more skill options.

As a result, I let people pick a new skill, tool, or language proficiency per int modifier when starting. Then people have to choose with those leftover ability scores do they want 10 int and 12 wis for that +1 perception or do they want that proficiency instead...

Also incentivizes arcane trickster rogues to put more int into the build. In my experience, most of them just use spells that don't need DCs so they dumb int anyway.

I've always thought intelligence was very lacking.

[pwykersotz]

Gonna be honest, I have a slight tendency to revel in the (perceived) uselessness of Intelligence in this edition. My primary GM obsesses over Intelligence. In his 3.5 campaign, you can be competitive as a commoner with no powers and 10 in all stats except Int cranked through the roof. I see it on the internet a lot too, where people just assume that intelligence is the sum total of your usefulness as a person. That 5e incentivizes people away from it makes me smile a little.

But in the interest of balance, I definitely like the Int instead of Dex for initiative or the addition of a Tactics skill which can provide minor combat boons if you take a round to use it, and dislike the extra proficiencies and languages.

[Sindeloke]

How is this different for Int or Cha checks?

I mean, I know many DMs treat those differently. But they shouldn't. If there's time to do the one thing, auto success if possible. If there's not time but it's being done repeatedly as you go along, or secret, passive. If it's a group effort, group check. Otherwise roll for your character only.

The whole "everyone rolls but one success is a group success" and "best man please step forward" things are what mess up Intelligence and Charisma checks. It actually ruins any check. Often Perception or Investigation too. But they shouldn't, because as a DM you aren't supposed to be calling for checks like that.

One point of order - we're all using "group check" slightly wrong here, because there is a specific "group check" mechanism in 5e for things the whole party is attempting together, and the "group check = automatic success because only one person needs to get it and 4-5 rolls make that almost guaranteed" isn't true if you're doing it right. It goes like this: everyone rolls, and if half or more of the party succeeds then they all do, otherwise they all fail, even if one of them beat the check.

The ur-example is a Stealth check, the idea being that the clever rogue can jerk his clumsy paladin friend out of the light just in time, or alternately the clattering of the fighter's poorly secured sword gives everyone away despite the careful guidance of the ranger or whatever. Or everyone is swimming the river together and the good swimmers are supporting the bad ones, either pulling the weaklings to success by cooperation or dragging the strong ones down by incompetence that's too great for them to overcome. Constitution is a hard argument, sure, but it's easy to see how a party working together could aid or interfere with each other's physical checks.

But there's really no reason not to use it for Charisma checks (the boorish and demanding cleric pisses off the gate guard and makes him unamenable to the bard's eloquent words, the sorceror's quick apologies make up for it), Intelligence (the barbarian's wild guess sparks a memory in the wizard, the druid's inane chatter distracts him and he loses the thought), or even Wisdom (simple peer pressure, you know the Duke is lying but your friends seem so convinced...)

So if we're actually using Group Checks and not just a group check, that's some encouragement to not completely any dump stats for anyone right there. (Which I think is maybe what you're saying but I thought it bore clarification. )

[Nifft]

Untrue in my experience.

Intelligence problems are always solved by ONE person having the skill. If one person knows the answer, they share that answer -- duplicating the information is free.

Strength problems are usually solved serially, by EACH person. If one person climbs a wall, that doesn't get everyone else over the wall for free.

Charisma is a mixed bag. Some problems can be solved by ONE character ("designated talky person"), other times EACH of the PCs need to plausibly pull off a disguise and/or bluff. Some DMs only use the former, which could lead to your perception about Charisma, but that's not universal.


How is this different for Int or Cha checks? See above.

Sometimes they're different. Not always.



The whole "everyone rolls but one success is a group success" and "best man please step forward" things are what mess up Intelligence and Charisma checks. It actually ruins any check. Often Perception or Investigation too. But they shouldn't, because as a DM you aren't supposed to be calling for checks like that.

Mmm. Not always. But sometimes.

In my experience, it's easier to plausibly force everyone to make Charisma checks. It's not easy to justify making everyone succeed on an Investigation check -- those seem inherently geared to reward the whole group for one successful check.

Stealth and Perception can be similar -- it's pretty obvious that one failed Stealth check can raise the alarm, invalidating all other current & future Stealth checks. It's also obvious that one person seeing a threat can alert the rest of his or her group.

Perception can be individual, sometimes: "Pass this check and you're not Surprised."

Stealth can be individual, sometimes: "Pass this DC and you get Advantage on actions in the first round."

But mostly, they're not individual.

== == ==

The other issue is: allowing an individual to shine can be a good thing.

There's no inherent problem with one character being Ye Smarte Perfonne and showing off how much the character knows. This is analogous to one character being Ye Stronge Perfonne and showing off how much the character can lift. It's cool, and it's a feature of a system that allows specialization.

The problem is not that some Intelligence checks are one-PC checks.

The problem is that there are not enough other kinds of Intelligence checks.


== == ==

To say it another way:

It's fine that sometimes a rope is sufficient to obviate most individual Strength checks, because sometimes a rope is NOT sufficient, so sometimes you have to make Strength checks even if it's not your forte.

Intelligence checks aren't like that. There's insufficient "sometimes".

[mephnick]

. I see it on the internet a lot too, where people just assume that intelligence is the sum total of your usefulness as a person.

Well a lot of your stereotypical gamers don't have a lot else to go on, so naturally they overvalue intelligence. Hell, people here actually argue that INT should cover initiative. Anyone that's played any kind of sport ever knows that's wrong.

Of course these are the people who think their INT score would be 16 if they were a DnD character and not like..11, which is probably where most decent academics would fall. You know..slightly above average.

[ZorroGames]

Well a lot of your stereotypical gamers don't have a lot else to go on, so naturally they overvalue intelligence. Hell, people here actually argue that INT should cover initiative. Anyone that's played any kind of sport ever knows that's wrong.

Of course these are the people who think their INT score would be 16 if they were a DnD character and not like..11, which is probably where most decent academics would fall. You know..slightly above average.

:smalleek: :smallfrown: :smallconfused:

Only NPCs (and other people) are average! :smallwink:

[Deathtongue]

Well a lot of your stereotypical gamers don't have a lot else to go on, so naturally they overvalue intelligence. Hell, people here actually argue that INT should cover initiative. Anyone that's played any kind of sport ever knows that's wrong.

Of course these are the people who think their INT score would be 16 if they were a DnD character and not like..11, which is probably where most decent academics would fall. You know..slightly above average.In a world where there isn't universal schooling, mass illiteracy, and a lack of childhood nutrition and development programs what with everyone doing their business in a chamber pot and scratching in the soil with wood, most people in the real world transported to D&D should have an intelligence of at least 14. If Boris the Peasant who has never set foot in a classroom and definitely didn't get enough calories between the ages of 0 and 5 has an intelligence of 10, then Jonathan the high-schooler with straight A's should have an intelligence of at LEAST 14, and probably higher than that.

Average PC intelligence being 10 or so says more about the grim environment of the D&D landscape than some supposed superiority complex about real-world nerds.

[ZorroGames]

In a world where there isn't universal schooling, mass illiteracy, and a lack of childhood nutrition and development programs what with everyone doing their business in a chamber pot and scratching in the soil with wood, most people in the real world transported to D&D should have an intelligence of at least 14. If Boris the Peasant who has never set foot in a classroom and definitely didn't get enough calories between the ages of 0 and 5 has an intelligence of 10, then Jonathan the high-schooler with straight A's should have an intelligence of at LEAST 14, and probably higher than that.

Average PC intelligence being 10 or so says more about the grim environment of the D&D landscape than some supposed superiority complex about real-world nerds.

That is why all civillizations crashed before mass education could save them frim themselves. Oh wait, Assyria, Rome, Greece, China, etc., - Sorry but many if not most life skills like agriculture and housing and clothing and etc., existed before mass education.

Yeah, those "ancients" did not know enough to survive which is why moles rules the world.

[Tanarii]

One point of order - we're all using "group check" slightly wrong here, because there is a specific "group check" mechanism in 5e for things the whole party is attempting together, and the "group check = automatic success because only one person needs to get it and 4-5 rolls make that almost guaranteed" isn't true if you're doing it right. It goes like this: everyone rolls, and if half or more of the party succeeds then they all do, otherwise they all fail, even if one of them beat the check.Point of order. I wasn't using it wrong at all. That was my entire point.

[Unoriginal]

In a world where there isn't universal schooling, mass illiteracy, and a lack of childhood nutrition and development programs what with everyone doing their business in a chamber pot and scratching in the soil with wood, most people in the real world transported to D&D should have an intelligence of at least 14. If Boris the Peasant who has never set foot in a classroom and definitely didn't get enough calories between the ages of 0 and 5 has an intelligence of 10, then Jonathan the high-schooler with straight A's should have an intelligence of at LEAST 14, and probably higher than that.

Average PC intelligence being 10 or so says more about the grim environment of the D&D landscape than some supposed superiority complex about real-world nerds.

You're assuming a lot about D&D world people, dude.

First, "mass illiteracy" ? Basically everyone can read and write the languages they speak. Second, lack of childhood nutrition and development programs? That's highly dependent on the regions.

Third, "grim environment of the D&D landscape"? The typical D&D world isn't grim by default. And it's not "average PC intelligence being 10", it's "average person intelligence being 10", aka this is what your average commoner has.

Not sure what having indoor toilets has to do with being smart.

[UrielAwakened]

The simplest solution is go back to Fort, Reflex, and Will: 4e style.

Higher of Str and Con = Fort save

Higher of Dex and Int = Reflex save

Higher of Wis and Cha = Will save

[Deathtongue]

That is why all civillizations crashed before mass education could save them frim themselves. Oh wait, Assyria, Rome, Greece, China, etc., - Sorry but many if not most life skills like agriculture and housing and clothing and etc., existed before mass education.So what? That doesn't mean that 99.5% of the people who lived in agricultural or nomadic societies before the Industrial age were usually physiologically and often neurologically underdeveloped. Poverty was a fact of life for most anyone not in the middle or upper class, an environment not conducive to raising anyone's IQ. You still had your Archimedes and your Platos, but for every one of those super-genius scholars you had hundreds of thousands of people who would, even if they were taught to read, struggle to reach an IQ of 80 due to a bad childhood.


You're assuming a lot about D&D world people, dude.Look, the game can say what they want about their D&D society. The rules could say that every peasant is a master hacker who can program in five languages despite never seeing a computer in their life. Whatever. The rules aren't obliged to make any external sense or to respect the fourth wall.

However, if you want to have a setting that's even vaguely plausible, we have to plug in the gaps of the D&D setting with what we know from our experience. And we do know from D&D, with the exception of exceptional settings like Spelljammer, posits a world where the vast majority of people spend their entire lives in provincial farms or hunter-gathering tribes and that the people who do live like this spend their lives in massive generational poverty. The super-shiny cities full of well-educated wizards are a massive aberration from how most people live their lives; after all, nations (or their equivalent before nationalism) have hundreds of thousands to millions of people and most cities outside of ancient China struggle to reach the mid tens of thousands. We should not be surprised by this, because that's how people lived before the second, let alone the first Industrial Revolution. What's more, Dungeons and Dragons is much, much more dangerous than our pre-industrial world which further reduces the chance for human (or rather, sapient) actualization. You think it's bad trying to get three square meals and a fumbling education when your biggest problem is flash floods and greedy samurai, try having it in a world where anyone outside of a major city is in a constant state of warfare.

[willdaBEAST]

In a world where there isn't universal schooling, mass illiteracy, and a lack of childhood nutrition and development programs what with everyone doing their business in a chamber pot and scratching in the soil with wood, most people in the real world transported to D&D should have an intelligence of at least 14. If Boris the Peasant who has never set foot in a classroom and definitely didn't get enough calories between the ages of 0 and 5 has an intelligence of 10, then Jonathan the high-schooler with straight A's should have an intelligence of at LEAST 14, and probably higher than that.

Average PC intelligence being 10 or so says more about the grim environment of the D&D landscape than some supposed superiority complex about real-world nerds.

I think you're over focused on one view of intelligence and at least based on the school system in America, an education that would have next to no application in Faerun. By IQ test standards and school testing most hunter gatherers would probably be considered somewhere on the spectrum, despite elements of their intelligence like: encyclopedic knowledge of migration patterns for animals, growth cycles for plants and what's edible/potable.

As InspectorG pointed out, there tends to be an incredible amount of metagaming with intelligence. Coming up with complex plans and contingencies when faced with something you didn't account for? Quickly recognizing weaknesses in the enemy's tactics and exploiting them? Those aren't qualities that most people would have and honestly not something being intelligent guarantees either. Even remembering the names of every NPC, what they asked of you, etc, is something average people would struggle with (outside of explicitly taking notes in character).

I'm not saying you have to strive for complete realism or that it would be fun if you did, but I personally find it rewarding to think of what limitations my character might have and try to play as them, rather than transporting my mind into some muscle bound superhero.

My first AL character was intentionally built to be strategic and capable of being a leader. Once his intel reached 20 I started looking up obscure words to use and complaining that my allies were out of formation during combat (he would drill them during downtime). I'm now playing the opposite, a fairly simple minded Paladin who wants to follow orders. This can be frustrating in AL since you never know what the group composition will be and there often isn't a clear leader.

It's a balancing act. I think it behooves us all to recognize if we have a specific play style and to accommodate that into your character. If you're bossy and opinionated as a person and need to have strong input into any plan the party makes, don't make a low intel character unless you embrace those qualities. That said, 8 intelligence doesn't mean you're a drooling vegetable. You could play 8 intelligence as someone who never second guesses themselves and operates only off of preconceived notions, rather than someone who analyzes the information around them.

[Tanarii]

As InspectorG pointed out, there tends to be an incredible amount of metagaming with intelligence. Coming up with complex plans and contingencies when faced with something you didn't account for? Quickly recognizing weaknesses in the enemy's tactics and exploiting them? Those aren't qualities that most people would have and honestly not something being intelligent guarantees either. Even remembering the names of every NPC, what they asked of you, etc, is something average people would struggle with (outside of explicitly taking notes in character). Good thing players generally aren't very good at these things either. In fact, if they don't get 30 seconds or more to plan what to do in their 6 second game turn, or take notes of NPC names, they're often worse than I would expect out of seasoned combat adventurers who depend on their network of social contacts to find gainful murderhoboing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Good thing players generally aren't very good at these things either. In fact, if they don't get 30 seconds or more to plan what to do in their 6 second game turn, or take notes of NPC names, they're often worse than I would expect out of seasoned combat adventurers who depend on their network of social contacts to find gainful murderhoboing.

Part of that is that 4 hours a week is not much compared to 24/7 living in it. Same as with academic study of languages--you don't really learn one the same as having to live in a country where no one speaks your native language.

But yes, INT is overrated on what it should be able to do. I've known lots of ridiculously intelligent people (as in, world-renowned theoretical physicists) who were hopeless outside their area of specialization. Reaction times? Measured in minutes, not seconds or milliseconds. Knowledge of X (other than their field)? No better than the average person (and often much worse). Ability to figure out things? Not incredible (again, outside their narrow field). I've also known "stupid" (little formal education, lower IQ) people who had huge vocabularies, were adept at a whole range of things, and had vast stores of information.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Conceptually at least, I'll throw my hat in with Z-Man's changes. I like it enough that I'm seriously considering it for my next campaign.

[Sindeloke]

Point of order. I wasn't using it wrong at all. That was my entire point.

Yeah that's why I ended my post with


Which I think is maybe what you're saying but I thought it bore clarification.

As for the current thread -


But yes, INT is overrated on what it should be able to do. I've known lots of ridiculously intelligent people (as in, world-renowned theoretical physicists) who were hopeless outside their area of specialization. [...] Knowledge of X (other than their field)? No better than the average person (and often much worse). Ability to figure out things? Not incredible (again, outside their narrow field).

Well, yeah, D&D is making no attempt to be realistic. Partly because it's a game system and you get to a point very quickly with an actual practical system where granularity is far more detrimental to playability than it is beneficial to simulation, and partly because it's very much steeped in a literary tradition of People Being Unrealistically Good At Things. Like think about literally any sci-fi show: one character is The Scientist and that character can do literally any science. One character is The Doctor and that character can do literally any surgery or medical procedure, make any diagnostic. One character is The Engineer and that character can understand, fix or build literally any object regardless of field of operation or even planet of origin. And it's not just a mental thing, the Combat Guy is both power lifter, Olympic gymnast, master of sixteen different martial arts and military-grade sharpshooter and the Diplomacy Guy is immune to the pitfalls of cultural variance.

And that's a good thing. "I know everything there is to know about the life, biology and habitat of the Peruvian Spotted Praying Mantis but I'm afraid I can't tell you jack squat about the snake that's about to eat your face" makes for very realistic characters, but pretty terrible storytelling in a heroic action-adventure tale, where you have a limited number of characters to cover a very very large skill and knowledge base and your main priority is moving the plot and letting your characters do cool things. Making a realistic distinction between "knowing what plants are edible in the forest I grew up in" and "knowing what plants are edible in this jungle on the other side of the world" instead of just allowing proficiency in a single Survival skill to cover both just slows down the game for no actual benefit, and saying "we can't use Intelligence this way for balance purposes because that's not what every type of intelligence always means in the real world" is honestly the same thing. It's enough that that is a legitimate part of the overriding category of "intelligence," it doesn't need to be the entire definition.

(If you were going to split any attribute at all, it would probably be Dexterity that made the most sense - a separation between the gross agility of an acrobat and fine motor control of a pickpocket would play nicely with game mechanics and align well with some famous character tropes - but the Agile Thief is enough of a cultural staple that I don't think there's a real compelling motive.)

[Eric Diaz]

One point of order - we're all using "group check" slightly wrong here, because there is a specific "group check" mechanism in 5e for things the whole party is attempting together, and the "group check = automatic success because only one person needs to get it and 4-5 rolls make that almost guaranteed" isn't true if you're doing it right. It goes like this: everyone rolls, and if half or more of the party succeeds then they all do, otherwise they all fail, even if one of them beat the check.

The ur-example is a Stealth check, the idea being that the clever rogue can jerk his clumsy paladin friend out of the light just in time, or alternately the clattering of the fighter's poorly secured sword gives everyone away despite the careful guidance of the ranger or whatever. Or everyone is swimming the river together and the good swimmers are supporting the bad ones, either pulling the weaklings to success by cooperation or dragging the strong ones down by incompetence that's too great for them to overcome. Constitution is a hard argument, sure, but it's easy to see how a party working together could aid or interfere with each other's physical checks.

But there's really no reason not to use it for Charisma checks (the boorish and demanding cleric pisses off the gate guard and makes him unamenable to the bard's eloquent words, the sorceror's quick apologies make up for it), Intelligence (the barbarian's wild guess sparks a memory in the wizard, the druid's inane chatter distracts him and he loses the thought), or even Wisdom (simple peer pressure, you know the Duke is lying but your friends seem so convinced...)

So if we're actually using Group Checks and not just a group check, that's some encouragement to not completely any dump stats for anyone right there. (Which I think is maybe what you're saying but I thought it bore clarification. )

Yeah, those are also good reasons not to dump abilities.

If you allow me to nitpick: a Stealth check is not a great use to the rule IMO, and IIRC is not the example the book actually uses. It would make 100 ninjas infinitely better at hiding (providing each one has more than 50% chance) than a single ninja. Granted, it makes things faster.

Also, while I like your Charisma and Wisdom examples, I'm not sure about Intelligence - seems like an individual task for me. I am having a hard time thinking of good examples myself.

EDIT: maybe "group Intelligence" can be used negatively - avoid offending the priests or nobles while discussing a grave matter (religion/history), avoid eating poisoned fruits (nature), avoid activating the trap you KNOW is in the room, etc. I know some of my examples would probably use Wisdom intead...

[Unoriginal]

It would make 100 ninjas infinitely better at hiding (providing each one has more than 50% chance) than a single ninja.

And we can't have that. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConservationOfNinjutsu)

[Tanarii]

Also, while I like your Charisma and Wisdom examples, I'm not sure about Intelligence - seems like an individual task for me. I am having a hard time thinking of good examples myself.

EDIT: maybe "group Intelligence" can be used negatively - avoid offending the priests or nobles while discussing a grave matter (religion/history), avoid eating poisoned fruits (nature), avoid activating the trap you KNOW is in the room, etc. I know some of my examples would probably use Wisdom intead...
If the players and/or PCs are discussing it or arguing about it, then it's a group Intelligence check. One might hold out thinking the others are wrong, but that's a roleplaying concern. What matters is if the consensus is either right or wrong, ie does the group pass the check.

Unless the group can't communicate, IMX they're almost always discussing things. Intelligence (recall) or Lore checks should almost always be Group checks. If they can't communicate, they can role individually and everyone can act on their (privately given) information individually.

There's absolutely no reason why everyone should get to roll, and a single right answer provides the information. Why should the people that don't know the right answer, and are likely guessing wrong or disagreeing or not trusting the guy who claims they know, all go along with it? That doesn't match what happens with group of people at all. I mean ... look at any thread about RAW on any forum.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the players and/or PCs are discussing it or arguing about it, then it's a group Intelligence check. One might hold out thinking the others are wrong, but that's a roleplaying concern. What matters is if the consensus is either right or wrong, ie does the group pass the check.

Unless the group can't communicate, IMX they're almost always discussing things. Intelligence (recall) or Lore checks should almost always be Group checks. If they can't communicate, they can role individually and everyone can act on their (privately given) information individually.

There's absolutely no reason why everyone should get to roll, and a single right answer provides the information. Why should the people that don't know the right answer, and are likely guessing wrong or disagreeing or not trusting the guy who claims they know, all go along with it? That doesn't match what happens with group of people at all. I mean ... look at any thread about RAW on any forum.

The exception for me to "all lore is a group check" is when the party explicitly selects a spokesperson for a puzzle. Then it's a single check, but only that person is involved and they can't get help (either in character or out of character) or it turns back to a group check.

[Tanarii]

The exception for me to "all lore is a group check" is when the party explicitly selects a spokesperson for a puzzle. Then it's a single check, but only that person is involved and they can't get help (either in character or out of character) or it turns back to a group check.Same with a single spokes person on a charisma check. Of course, you better chase the other people out of the room or be an officer or non-com in charge of an actual military squad. Otherwise they're guaranteed to open their yap. :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Same with a single spokes person on a charisma check. Of course, you better chase the other people out of the room or be an officer or non-com in charge of an actual military squad. Otherwise they're guaranteed to open their yap. :smallamused:

Well, there is that :smallsmile: