5e characters on the slow side?

[Arc_knight25]

I've noticed from the 5e campaigns that I have played thus far, that the INT stat has fallen by the way side. The only class that benefits from it is the Wizard.

INT being the only stat that affects the "knowledge" skills. So Arcana, Religion and Nature.

With most classes using this as a dump stat, and not having a Wizard in the party that took all these knowledge's, How does a party even know what their fighting? Or how to overcome its defenses or stay away from its offense.

e.g

I wonder what this feminine creature with snakes for hair does? *thinks over limited schooling in identifying creatures* I best just stay away from those snakes they seem poisonous. Why do I feel stiff now that I have looked it their eyes. Hmm am I turning to stone?. *turns to stone* Yup turned to stone.

[Unoriginal]

Stupid people won't go far in the adventuring business.

One of my player selected WIS and INT as his Paladin's dump stat, and has been roleplaying her as pretty moronic. Pretty sure she's going to die quick. In any case, she's going to get a reputation when the group goes back in town and the NPC guides start talking to others.

[The_Jette]

I've noticed from the 5e campaigns that I have played thus far, that the INT stat has fallen by the way side. The only class that benefits from it is the Wizard.

INT being the only stat that affects the "knowledge" skills. So Arcana, Religion and Nature.

With most classes using this as a dump stat, and not having a Wizard in the party that took all these knowledge's, How does a party even know what their fighting? Or how to overcome its defenses or stay away from its offense.

e.g

I wonder what this feminine creature with snakes for hair does? *thinks over limited schooling in identifying creatures* I best just stay away from those snakes they seem poisonous. Why do I feel stiff now that I have looked it their eyes. Hmm am I turning to stone?. *turns to stone* Yup turned to stone.

They do it the hard way. They ask questions of locals who are having trouble with the creature. e.g. "What? The people who returned from fighting the feminine creature with snakes for hair said their allies were turned to stone with a single look from the creature? I better not look at it." Or, they fight it. Then, if they survive, when they run into another one of the same type of creature, they know how to fight it more effectively. Of course, most monsters don't have the issue of turning everyone to stone with a gaze attack. So, it's easier to survive most encounters and grow from that experience without having the book knowledge to start with. Having a low intelligence is why most adventurers took to the life, anyways. They're too dumb to know any better. :smallbiggrin:

[AvatarVecna]

I've noticed from the 5e campaigns that I have played thus far, that the INT stat has fallen by the way side. The only class that benefits from it is the Wizard.

INT being the only stat that affects the "knowledge" skills. So Arcana, Religion and Nature.

With most classes using this as a dump stat, and not having a Wizard in the party that took all these knowledge's, How does a party even know what their fighting? Or how to overcome its defenses or stay away from its offense.

e.g

I wonder what this feminine creature with snakes for hair does? *thinks over limited schooling in identifying creatures* I best just stay away from those snakes they seem poisonous. Why do I feel stiff now that I have looked it their eyes. Hmm am I turning to stone?. *turns to stone* Yup turned to stone.

So awhile back, I tallied up the number of times each saving throw is called for in the Player's Handbook spell section, to get some idea of how common each save was. You probably won't be surprised to hear that Dex, Con, and Wis were all hanging out around the 150 mark, or thereabout, and probably won't be surprised to hear that spells call for 20-30 each for Str and Cha saves. But you might be surprised to learn that there are only 3 spells in the PHB that call for an Intelligence save. Oh sure, there's plenty that call for an Investigation check (the vast majority of Illusion spells), but barely any that call for an actual save. Those three spells are Feeblemind, Symbol (Insanity), and Phantasmal Force. And I'll give you a hint: there ain't a lot of class features that are calling for Int saves either.

But that's a problem for the monsters, how often to monsters themselves call for saves, that's what matters to players! Well, Str saves are called for 64 times in the MM, Dex saves are called for 95 times, Con saves are called for 138 times, Int saves are called for 4 times, Wis saves are called for 55 times, and Cha saves are called for 5 times. Those four Int saves, BTW, are the Intellect Devourer's "Devour Intellect", the Mind Flayer's "Tentacles" (specifically, the save to resist being stunned by them if it grapples you), the Mind Flayer's "Mind Blast", and the Psychic Grey Ooze's "Psychic Crush" (which is a variant monster that only gets a sidebar to itself). But what about those spells I mentioned, monsters cast spells! Yeah, but not those spells. Aboleths, Barlgura demons, and Pixies can cast Phantasmal Force, but no monster in the MM casts Feeblemind or Symbol.

But what about skills, what about recognizing monsters! Well, what about it? In 3.5 and PF, you needed at least 1 rank to be allowed to attempt most knowledge checks, and the only way you could keep multiple knowledge skills up to par over the course of your path to 20th level was to have the Int necessary to invest heavily in all of them, and most classes had better things to do with their skill points. Thus, it fell to the party NEEEEEEERRRRRRRD to have all the knowledge skills. Additionally, it helped that those editions had set rules for what a knowledge check got you in regards to identifying monsters and knowing their abilities/weaknesses. But in 5e, not only are DCs fairly handwavey, but for the most part they don't matter because DCs scale so much lower; 10 is average, 20 is hard, 30 is near impossible...but that means that a party of five Int 10 people with no training in any Int skills has a 23% chance of succeeding at that DC 20. Even if you use a reasonable rule like "identification is DC {CR}, more specific info is DC {CR+5}, that same party will be totally fine for the vast majority of their career without ever investing.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

*Dumping* Int, leaving it at 8, is a different matter, though. It mean you can never reach that DC 20 check. So if you *do* want to even have chance to answer a hard question, you better keep your Int at 10... which is average, not stupid.

[ImproperJustice]

Vecna makes some really good points.

I know that my EK is the current “genius” of our group but sadly does not have a single knowledge skill at his disposal.

On the flipside, one of my Alchemist’s key contributions is high INT and all four of the knowledge skills. Knowing things is always annice advantage and is usually helpful in getting more flavor out of dungeon dressing.

I’m guessing that the Rogue’s expertise and the Bard’s Jack of all trades can help here.

Another consideration is that having your proficiency bonus apply to skills will usually equal or evdn eclipse your attribute bonus.

[zinycor]

I love playing stupid characters. it allows me to do so many things, be comical, make stupid mistakes on purpose, going for the most direct approach, diminishes meta gaming. Now, I think that having someone being the int guy in the party is grat, even necessary. But playing the stupid guy is always so much fun.

1 thing that I have to say about the way we consider inteligence at my table, that might not be the same for everyone else, it's that we consider int to be booksmarts. So having a low int score doesn't really mean that you are a complete idiot, just that you don't read many books (Maybe you don't know how to read), but you may still be wise, have street smarts, being good at talking to people and convincing them.

I didn't play a lot of 3.5 and pathfinder because of how it tied inteligence to the number of skill points, so stupid characters were way less effective outside of combat which was a very boring playstyle. In the end many of the character concepts that I came up with ended up with a high inteligence even if it didn't fit the character.

Sorry for the incohesive rant but, the point is that I think that low int characters are fun, and don't have any problems with them.

[AvatarVecna]

*Dumping* Int, leaving it at 8, is a different matter, though. It mean you can never reach that DC 20 check. So if you *do* want to even have chance to answer a hard question, you better keep your Int at 10... which is average, not stupid.

That one particular member of the party can't make dc20 checks, but all that means that you changed from the highest one of five D20 to the highest one of 4 d20, which changes the party's odds of success from 22% to about 18%. And most checks are going to be DC-10 or dc-15 rather than dc20; I used dc20 as an extreme example, but even if the entire party dumps intelligence the way you're describing, their odds of having somebody succeed on the dc15 intelligence check is about 77%. Intelligence 10 is average yes, but it's still problematic for making these checks consistently on your own. But that doesn't matter, what matters is whether the party as a whole gets it or not. Going from 10 to 8 doesn't make all that huge difference in that regard; going from 10 to 3 might, but despite how it's brought up on these boards, I've rarely seen somebody actually dump intelligence to 3.

[Naanomi]

I assume smart people tend to choose safer/more consistent careers than adventuring...

[zinycor]

I assume smart people tend to choose safer/more consistent careers than adventuring...

At my table we joke that characters with a high wisdom shouldn't even be adventurers, they should realize that there are easier and safer ways to accomplish their goals.

[JackPhoenix]

I assume smart people tend to choose safer/more consistent careers than adventuring...

That's more wisdom than intelligence.

[mephnick]

That's more wisdom than intelligence.

Eh, high intelligence points towards study and memorization. Not really the type to go slaughter caves full of goblins.

[Willie the Duck]

Since there was no question, I'll just prattle on.

Yes, this edition's mechanical dump stat is Int. I'm not especially upset by that because I recognize that not everything has to be equal. Heck, in the original D&D game, three of the six stats (Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom) were each genuinely meaningless* except for the one class for each stat that got an xp bonus for high scores. Likewise, for all of TSR, Charisma was actually the most powerful stat in the game... if you used the reaction tables (which a lot of people did not, and of course having more than one character with high charisma was only useful if one of them was missing, etc.).
*minus the perk of getting extra languages for high Int

Likewise, having a bard with JoaT or a knowledge cleric or a the like means you can probably get by with just being skilled and not actually have a high Int score.

So mechanically, Int is pretty useless unless you want to run a wizard (or certain types of eldritch knight, or the guy who picks up the Ritual Caster feat because you don't have a wizard, etc.). Right up until you hit Mind Flayer/ Intellect Devourer country (which is a poor way to force something to be meaningful).

From a RP aspect, of course, having a party without no one smart can be either great fun or get old real fast. So my groups have tended to have at least one person put a 12 or 13 in Int instead of one of the more mechanically supported stats. Usually someone like the warlock or paladin who already gets a good wisdom save might choose to put their 3rd or 4th best stat in Int, rather than Wis.

[Tanarii]

First of all, Int 8 characters aren't stupid, they're just below average. Of course, most D&D players have a highly inflated idea of their own intelligence. :smallamused: and the average PC ability score is 12. So it's pretty common to think of it as stupid.

Also, if particular ability scores only matter for class features (including spells) and attacking/AC in your campaigns, either the DMs aren't setting enough challenges calling for ability checks based on them, or the PCs aren't doing things that require them often enough.

I actually find social interaction checks (Cha) to be less common than recalling info or analyzing things checks (Int). But I run a game with traditional dungeons and wilderness adventuring sites, which include plenty of traps and other things you need to figure out by finding and recognizing and understanding clues, which is primarily Investigation, with a mix of Lore skills. Cha checks are still valuable, because negotiating with enemies is definitely a thing. But Int checks are generally more common.

Also when a player can't remember something the PC definitely once knew, but there's a question of ability to recall, Ie it's not automatic because they need to remember right now without thinking on it, or it's been a while ... then I set a DC and call for an Int check.

Int is also useful if a resolution roll is needed for characters doing research on creatures, places or things.

I'm not a fan of "state of the character's knowledge" checks, where a die roll determines if the PC knows or doesn't know something the player doesn't, as opposed to recalls or doesn't recall something the player can't. Mostly because gating info behind ability checks is generally a terrible idea, and also because it's often used poorly, e.g. everyone rolls and if one character passes everyone gets to know. I do use them occasionally, usually as a group check when there is time for the party to discuss (and thus could easily come to the wrong consensus), or individually when it's something a single character dealing with under time pressure.

What I don't do are "monster (combat) knowledge" checks, a la 4e.

Edit:

Since there was no question, I'll just prattle on. lol yup that's where I went too.

[the secret fire]

The problem is obviously that high or even decent Int has almost no mechanical advantages for classes that don't use it as a casting stat, so dumping Int is a natural reaction. Simple fix: at my table, I have brought back the +Int modifier to skills known rule, with only mental skills (Int, Wis and Cha based skills) applicable for selection as bonus skills. I also add Str bonus/2 (round up) to HP to balance Str/Dex a bit better, and have reintroduced the henchmen rules from older editions to make charisma more useful, as well.

The usefulness of the stats is not all that well-balanced in 5e, but it's not a hard fix in a homebrew game.

[mephnick]

I actually find social interaction checks (Cha) to be less common than recalling info or analyzing things checks (Int). But I run a game with traditional dungeons and wilderness adventuring sites, which include plenty of traps and other things you need to figure out by finding and recognizing and understanding clues, which is primarily Investigation, with a mix of Lore skills..

It definitely doesn't help that a lot of DMs completely ignore Investigation and just lump everything into Perception.

[mephnick]

The problem is obviously that high or even decent Int has almost no mechanical advantages for classes that don't use it as a casting stat, so dumping Int is a natural reaction. Simple fix: at my table, I have brought back the +Int modifier to skills known rule, with only mental skills (Int, Wis and Cha based skills) applicable for selection as bonus skills.

I'm assuming you've done something to prevent this being purely a massive buff for wizards? +5 skills for playing the strongest class? Don't mind if I do.

[the secret fire]

What I don't do are "monster (combat) knowledge" checks, a la 4e.

They were in 3.5, as well, iirc. I personally love Knowledge (Int) checks to know what a monster can do, and they're easy enough to make effective if you just re-skin your beasties to keep the players guessing. Using an Int check to determine whether or not a given player can know which entry in the monster manual to look up is a good way to make Intelligence useful again, and not just to Wizards.

[the secret fire]

I'm assuming you've done something to prevent this being purely a massive buff for wizards? +5 skills for playing the strongest class? Don't mind if I do.

I use a variety of house rules to re-balance the classes and stats as I see fit. I prefer Wizards to play more like old AD&D glass cannon Wizards did, so in addition to the above, at my table:

1. save-or-sucks trigger new saves based on how much the initial save was failed by (i.e. fail the save by three, the next check is in three rounds, rather than every round).

2. cumulative damage in a round adds up to trigger Concentration checks. So if you get hit twice in a round, the second check adds the damage of the first in determining the DC of the save. Also, if a caster gets hit in a round before casting a spell, he will have to make a concentration check to get the spell off, even if it is an instant spell.

[Pelle]

I'm not a fan of "state of the character's knowledge" checks, where a die roll determines if the PC knows or doesn't know something the player doesn't, as opposed to recalls or doesn't recall something the player can't. Mostly because gating info behind ability checks is generally a terrible idea, and also because it's often used poorly, e.g. everyone rolls and if one character passes everyone gets to know.

I prefer passive state-of-knowledge checks (with maybe an active roll to recall stuff in a stressfull situation). That way it is easy to be consistent, and it's easier to design challenges around it.

[Talionis]

Mechanically, they should have given us another Intelligence based character other than Wizard. I am still hoping we will get an improved version of Artificer to fill that role.

Making the Investigate Skill more important in your game is a help. The knowledge skills are important, but there are plenty of ways to get around it.

I am so glad, Intelligence was divorced from skills, I was so upset that athletic skills that Fighters wanted were tied to Intelligence in 3.5.

There are a few spells that use Intelligence checks and they can be pretty effective in this edition. Also, its a good for there to be a Knowledge Cleric, Wizard, or Bard in every party. One of the nice things about this edition is that those characters will feel more important and have their moments to shine. Every Scooby Gang needs a Velma.

[Tanarii]

They were in 3.5, as well, iirc.I couldn't remember off the top of my head. Thanks.


I personally love Knowledge (Int) checks to know what a monster can do, and they're easy enough to make effective if you just re-skin your beasties to keep the players guessing. Using an Int check to determine whether or not a given player can know which entry in the monster manual to look up is a good way to make Intelligence useful again, and not just to Wizards.You do you boo. They don't work for me, but that doesn't mean they don't work for everyone.


I prefer passive state-of-knowledge checks (with maybe an active roll to recall stuff in a stressfull situation). That way it is easy to be consistent, and it's easier to design challenges around it.I use ability checks, automatic success by taking 10 times as long, passive scores, group checks, and sometimes (although rarely) opposed checks.

Depends on what it is.

Trying to recall something PC once knew, or figure something out, under time pressure? Or Failure means your character never learned it? Active check.
(Edit: also: Failure means you recall bad info.)

Trying to recall something PC once knew, or figure something out, and it's possible and no penalty for failure but time? Ten times as long and automatic success.

Check will give something away , or PC is doing something as they go along? ie making repeated checks over time, but not for the same thing. Passive check.

Group all trying to figure out something or remember something or determine if someone knows about something, then sharing info*? Group check.

Two people in an argument? Opposed check.

*I almost never do One Success to Rule Them All checks. ie let everyone roll, then have one success give everyone the information. That's just pointless gating of info. If they are discussing info, make a group check. Also appropriate because in a group check, failures drag the group down. Think of any forum discussion about a rule and you'll see why that matters.

[mephnick]

You do you boo. They don't work for me, but that doesn't mean they don't work for everyone.

Do you not allow your PCs to recall information on monsters?

I'm almost certain you've answered me before on this but I'm coming off a night shift so..

[GlenSmash!]

My two cents on the matter:

8 Int is not dumb. Just slightly below average.

It doesn't take a lot of Intelligence to hit someone with a sword and take their stuff. History is full of successful people who were more charismatic than smart.

It does help me to think of Int as more of education, than straight up IQ, but YMMV.

Lastly I found my players started putting more points into Int when I started calling for more investigation checks.

[2D8HP]

I've noticed from the 5e campaigns that I have played thus far, that the INT stat has fallen by the way side. The only class that benefits from it is the Wizard.


Some DM's use Investigation as "Find Traps" (without getting harmed by them), instead of*Perception, so it comes up then.


INT being the only stat that affects the "knowledge" skills. So Arcana, Religion and Nature.

With most classes using this as a dump stat, and not having a Wizard in the party that took all these knowledge's, How does a party even know what their fighting? Or how to overcome its defenses or stay away from its offense....


As already stated upthread, 8 isn't that low, many functional people have less than average, half in fact.

Now as to identifying Monster Lore?

My PC's just don't, and this player hasn't memorized the Monster Manual either, nor do I assume that any given creature "stats" won't be changed by the DM.

Some folklore guessing is okay (holy symbols, turning your clothes inside out, and large pieces of iron may help, if it casts no shadow it's demonic, et cetera).

I depend on the DM to tell me what my PC perceives, if I'm told to roll dice to receive flavor text I will, but I don't expect it.

[Pelle]

Trying to recall something PC once knew, or figure something out, under time pressure? Or Failure means your character never learned it? Active check.
(Edit: also: Failure means you recall bad info.)


Bolded; I thought you said you were not a fan of checks to determine state-of-knowledge. I'm just saying I like to use PC's passive score to determine the state-of-knowledge, instead of rolling.

Contrast with knowledge checks in 3.5; one session players roll low and apparently knows nothing. The next session, the players ask again what they know about the same or something similar, rolls high and suddenly knows everything. There I have to remember what they have rolled in the past to be consistent.

In 5e, if using the passive score to determine state-of-knowledge, I can just make a note of what passive score is required for a given topic, and be really consistent. And it avoids the one success to rule them all issue, while still allowing for group efforts or background specific knowledge through giving advantage if appropriate.

As for recalling stuff, gating critical information behind checks, etc; no dispute.

[Tanarii]

Do you not allow your PCs to recall information on monsters?

I'm almost certain you've answered me before on this but I'm coming off a night shift so..
I allow recalling something the PC/Player once knew and has forgotten. Occasionally for state-of-the-PC-knowledge Lore checks (including straight Int) for actual Lore, which is usually vague and/or rumors. And definitely for research checks for detailed information, given access to a source for researching. But almost never for detailed info.

That's different from "we've never met this undead monster before let me make a Religion check to see if I can learn what it is, and what its strengths and weaknesses are."

I do the same for any Int check. Neither would I have you make "PC learned it in his past" checks, resulting in a paragraph of detailed Lore about the rise of Zoam the Corrupter, because you stumbled across a cultist wearing his sigil.


Bolded; I thought you said you were not a fan of checks to determine state-of-knowledge. I'm just saying I like to use PC's passive score to determine the state-of-knowledge, instead of rolling. I'm not. And yes, when I do it, I use passive checks when appropriate. Any time it's secret check (the players can't know a check was made), or they're doing something as they go along over time. (Which is different from doing the same task repeatedly for one thing.)

But since I design adventure sites without knowing which characters will go into them, using passive checks doesn't make any difference to my adventure site or encounter design.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that your typical Lizardfolk has 7 in INT, and is still a very efficient hunter one should not underestimate. And even INT 5 Hill Giants aren't that dumb.

[Arc_knight25]

Maybe it's just me, but without the proficiency bonus to a knowledge skill, how does one RP them knowing all that they can recall on certain types of monsters.

e.g

Why does the Barbarian who takes 20 on a skill check know a lot about an Illithid, and take another 20 and know a lot about say a bear and a third to learn what the Ghast does.

Do all characters thus take Creature Identifying 101 from adventuring school?

I like Proficiency = can make the check, as opposed to everyone untrained making the check as well.
To me that means INT and knowledge skills are more desirable to invest in so they party has the knowledge to fight creatures.

Thoughts?

[mephnick]

Do all characters thus take Creature Identifying 101 from adventuring school?

All characters in 5e are presumed to be competent adventurers..so sort of?

The DM always has the ability to say "No one has seen a mind flayer in centuries, you don't know anything about it."

Gating skills behind proficiency is contrary to what 5e is supposed to be about.

[Tanarii]

Thoughts?First of all, proficiency =\= trained. Ability scores include training as well as natural ability. And Proficiency means an area of focus, where you're better than the other things tha ability score represents, for whatever reason. It could natural talent, divine blessing, or training.

Proficiency only checks screw up the entire basis for the 5e ability check system, which is any adventurer can attempt any adventuring task, and having a higher ability score is more important than being proficient in something.

Second of all, what you're describing is an artifact of "state of the PC's knowledge" checks specifically, and "state of the world" checks generally. Combined with "one success to rule them all" checks. Where each PC gets to make an individual check, failure represents a state of the PC/world where that character can never succeed, and any one PC succeeding allows the entire group to succeed.

[Corsair14]

I miss the old system where your Int bonus determined how many skill points each class had per level. Removed it as a dump stat since no one wanted a completely useless character. But then in the old edition, if you didn't have the skill, you had major negatives or couldn't even remotely be successful at doing certain things instead of the crap way that everyone has now and have no problem doing everything although being slightly better if actually proficient.

[Pelle]

But since I design adventure sites without knowing which characters will go into them, using passive checks doesn't make any difference to my adventure site or encounter design.

No, but it makes a difference for consistency if it's an adventure that the same players will interact with over multiple sessions. Say in a megadungeon. Or do you just set the thresholds based on "taking 20"?

Also with passives I find it an advantage to design without knowing the PCs, otherwise it is hard to be partial and not biased.

[Beelzebubba]

But in 5e, not only are DCs fairly handwavey, but for the most part they don't matter because DCs scale so much lower; 10 is average, 20 is hard, 30 is near impossible...but that means that a party of five Int 10 people with no training in any Int skills has a 23% chance of succeeding at that DC 20. Even if you use a reasonable rule like "identification is DC {CR}, more specific info is DC {CR+5}, that same party will be totally fine for the vast majority of their career without ever investing.

You're letting every single character roll and if one succeeds, they get it? Yeah, that's why it's happening.


Group Checks
When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren't.

To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds.

Otherwise, the group fails. Group checks don't come up very often, and they're most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group. For example, when adventurers are navigating a swamp, the DM might call for a group Wisdom (Survival) check to see if the characters can avoid the quicksand, sinkholes, and other natural hazards of the environment. If at least half the group succeeds, the successful characters are able to guide their companions out of danger. Otherwise, the group stumbles into one of these hazards.

If no characters are proficient in Nature (for animals/goblinoids/giants/etc.), Arcana (for aberrations/demons/etc.), or Religion (for undead/demons/etc.) then I run it as a group check - because they're all a bunch of ignoramuses putting their heads together to get one bit of knowledge. The DC that half of the group beats is what they get.

I then scale the DCs appropriately based on the rarity, weirdness, and other factors - DC10 gives you a LOT about Kobolds, but 'you've heard of different kinds of snake beings, like medusas, nagas, yuan ti, and the like. They're magical and very powerful but you can't tell which it is from what you know'... DC15 is knowing the sizes of a typical Kobold den and raiding party, or 'it's a Medusa, it turns people to stone' and DC20 is knowing the Kobold chiefs in the area and the general locations of their lairs or 'you definitely do not want to look into as Medusa's eyes'.

If someone invests in one of the skills? Yeah, they roll, and if it's more than one party member, they can Help each other. If the entire rest of the group of ignoramuses wants to 'help' they do a Group Check and the DC they beat is the maximum value they offer.

It's a bit more complicated that way, but it prevents the stupidity of:
"What is it? I rolled a 2."
"Oh, yeah, I think about it too. I rolled a 12."
"Yeah, I try to identify it too..."

--

I like what someone else said too about re-skinning. If the party has expert players, I mix up the monsters and even add new capabilities. Like, the current group is going against Drow. One of the players said 'yeah, they don't really have spellcasters, right? Just Clerics.' Little does he know I'm bringing in AD&D Drow, where the women are Clerics and men are Gish Wizards, and the have more innate spells. "Hey, my Drow PC doesn't have that!"... yep, that's Drow of another royal house and bloodline, they are different. Deal.

[Beelzebubba]

I miss the old system where your Int bonus determined how many skill points each class had per level. Removed it as a dump stat since no one wanted a completely useless character. But then in the old edition, if you didn't have the skill, you had major negatives or couldn't even remotely be successful at doing certain things instead of the crap way that everyone has now and have no problem doing everything although being slightly better if actually proficient.

Welcome back to OD&D.

Come in, the water's warm, and adventurers are generally capable people!

:smallbiggrin:

[zinycor]

I don't get it... Why do people dislike dumb characters? They are really fun to watch and play aren't they?

[Unoriginal]

I don't get it... Why do people dislike dumb characters? They are really fun to watch and play aren't they?

Depends. They can easily turn annoying and frustrating, especially when players use "dumb" to mean "is unable to take anything seriously".

There's a difference between playing someone who's dim-witted and someone who shows his butt to the Duke "because that's what my character would do, he's dumb".

[Tanarii]

No, but it makes a difference for consistency if it's an adventure that the same players will interact with over multiple sessions. Say in a megadungeon. Or do you just set the thresholds based on "taking 20"?

Also with passives I find it an advantage to design without knowing the PCs, otherwise it is hard to be partial and not biased.
Fair enough. The intent of passives isn't to provide consistency, but if using them does that for you and it's want you want, that's awesome.

If I think something isn't automatically a success or failure, I set the thresholds based on whatever DC in the (typically) 5-20 range I think is appropriate for the task. Just like any other DC. I also determine time frame and failure modes for the task. Because I'm a huge proponent of using automatic successes given time.

And I use group checks for things all the players are involved in whenever it makes any kind of sense , that the failures can pull down the successes and the successes pull up the failures. If everyone can get involved, it's not already a success due to taking 10 times as long, and any one person can succeed for the entire party, I usually decide that's just an automatic success without a roll, unless it's exceptionally hard.

I like to minimize pointless rolling or one person rolling for the entire group, while not eliminating the usefulness of ability scores (and proficiencies) entirely, and also while not requiring constant chances of failure. In other words, make all of each PC's ability scores matter, but also give solid bonuses meaning, but conversely have low bonuses not be an anchor around their necks. That's a fine line to walk. I'm not perfect at it by any means. :smallbiggrin:

[Angelalex242]

Depends. They can easily turn annoying and frustrating, especially when players use "dumb" to mean "is unable to take anything seriously".

There's a difference between playing someone who's dim-witted and someone who shows his butt to the Duke "because that's what my character would do, he's dumb".

That's int 8, wis 8, Chaotic Neutral. And also a Darwin Award.

[Pelle]

Fair enough. The intent of passives isn't to provide consistency, but if using them does that for you and it's want you want, that's awesome.


Yeah, it is not a passive check per ce. It's just because Knowledge skills are for recalling information as you said, and there are no rules for determining s-o-k, afaik. Thus, in adjudicating that with a static score I don't need to remember if players have rolled before and if so what they got, and I don't get any lolrandom results either.

[xroads]

INT being the only stat that affects the "knowledge" skills. So Arcana, Religion and Nature.

With most classes using this as a dump stat, and not having a Wizard in the party that took all these knowledge's, How does a party even know what their fighting? Or how to overcome its defenses or stay away from its offense.


With my group, it's just pretty much ignored. Dumb characters become tactical geniuses when combat ensues. And on the other end of the spectrum, we have a wizard who is our equivalent of Leroy Jenkins.

Having said that, I look at intelligence as being book smarts. So a character with a low intelligence can still handle themselves in the real world well enough to function just fine.

[Caelic]

I don't know about anyone else, but in general, I avoid playing low-INT characters because I'm really pretty bad at it. I'm good at solving riddles, devising tactics and strategies, and puzzling out the schemes of NPCs, and I do it more or less reflexively. When playing a low-INT character, I have to constantly rein myself in, and I don't really enjoy pretending I haven't figured out the solution.

Hence, INT is almost never a dump stat for me.

[AvatarVecna]

Maybe it's just me, but without the proficiency bonus to a knowledge skill, how does one RP them knowing all that they can recall on certain types of monsters.

e.g

Why does the Barbarian who takes 20 on a skill check know a lot about an Illithid, and take another 20 and know a lot about say a bear and a third to learn what the Ghast does.

Do all characters thus take Creature Identifying 101 from adventuring school?

I like Proficiency = can make the check, as opposed to everyone untrained making the check as well.
To me that means INT and knowledge skills are more desirable to invest in so they party has the knowledge to fight creatures.

Thoughts?

People accumulate random knowledge as they go through life; some things stick, and others don't. Barbarians, Bards, and Druids could have knowledge based on oral traditions; Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues could have knowledge of various creatures gathered from a life soent hunting in a world where dragons and giants and talking trees are actual legitimate dangers you could run into, and not knowing how to survive them is the difference between being predator and prey; Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, Paladins, and Warlocks could have knowledge based on mythology or religious doctrine; Bards, Rogues, Sorcerers, Warlocksb and Wizards could have creature knowledge purely about magical properties associated with those creatures.

It's not all about book learning, there's lots of ways to learn things ib a world like this, and a lot of reasons to learn when you're looking to become an adventurer that survives the low levels.

[Sicarius Victis]

People accumulate random knowledge as they go through life; some things stick, and others don't. Barbarians, Bards, and Druids could have knowledge based on oral traditions; Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues could have knowledge of various creatures gathered from a life soent hunting in a world where dragons and giants and talking trees are actual legitimate dangers you could run into, and not knowing how to survive them is the difference between being predator and prey; Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, Paladins, and Warlocks could have knowledge based on mythology or religious doctrine; Bards, Rogues, Sorcerers, Warlocksb and Wizards could have creature knowledge purely about magical properties associated with those creatures.

I agree with the general idea of this statement, but I'd like to add that how someone knows something the way you describe is more suited towards backgrounds than classes. For example, a Wizard with the Sage background might know how to kill trolls because their magical studies included a study of different types of regeneration, but a wizard with the Soldier background might instead know that information because they were taught specifically how to fight them.

[Luccan]

I've noticed from the 5e campaigns that I have played thus far, that the INT stat has fallen by the way side. The only class that benefits from it is the Wizard.

INT being the only stat that affects the "knowledge" skills. So Arcana, Religion and Nature.

With most classes using this as a dump stat, and not having a Wizard in the party that took all these knowledge's, How does a party even know what their fighting? Or how to overcome its defenses or stay away from its offense.

e.g

I wonder what this feminine creature with snakes for hair does? *thinks over limited schooling in identifying creatures* I best just stay away from those snakes they seem poisonous. Why do I feel stiff now that I have looked it their eyes. Hmm am I turning to stone?. *turns to stone* Yup turned to stone.

Most groups (even those that came in with 5e) have at least a few years under their belt. They recognize the monsters as players, so most DMs handwave knowledge rolls in relation to monsters. Not the best way to do things, maybe, but better than having to roll for "what is goblin" in most fantasy campaigns. Which is why you should use them for other knowledge checks as well. I'd let someone with Nature use it to benefit gathering herbs, for instance, but also in identifying what type of venomous snake just bit the Fighter so the part knows what to do to cure them. Religion will tell you about the gods, which in my experience is a much less common knowledge subject among players, both because of homebrew and because most don't care to memorize official settings' mythos. Also, Invesigation users, Eldritch Knights, and Arcane Tricksters benefit. It's less useful than it was in, say, 3.X, but I think that's mostly a good thing. Plus it is a save now, so having a -1 probably isn't wise regardless.

[zinycor]

If you don't like players simply knowing weaknesses or strength of a monster, then you will have to spend some time customizing your monsters or giving them different descriptions.

If you describe a creature like a half-pig man, people will not think of it as an Orc (Unless they played old school DnD, in which case: 1.- They are awesome, 2.- You have them happy to bring half-pig orcs back).

If you describe the troll as having a hair made of fire, and they still attack him with fire, maybe the troll won't even be damaged. Now he is vulnerable to cold damage.

[Knaight]

I miss the old system where your Int bonus determined how many skill points each class had per level. Removed it as a dump stat since no one wanted a completely useless character. But then in the old edition, if you didn't have the skill, you had major negatives or couldn't even remotely be successful at doing certain things instead of the crap way that everyone has now and have no problem doing everything although being slightly better if actually proficient.

On the other hand, that old system is really weird. Being smarter doesn't really translate to picking up skills generally faster, but to picking up certain specific skills faster. It's not going to make it easier for you to learn to climb, or jump, or swim, or ride, or see, or hear. That's without getting into how "smarter" is a very broad term that includes traits that are lumped into both intelligence and wisdom in D&D.

[Pex]

It's a combination of Point Buy and optimization. Point Buy is an inherently zero sum system. Players rightfully prioritize what their class needs and no one needs Intelligence except the Wizard. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster have some need, but they are specific archetypes where as all wizards need Intelligence. After that players tend to focus on saving throws, so if they didn't need Wisdom before they need it now with what's left over from their prime. Constitution is needed for the hit points. Dexterity is needed for the initiative, AC for non-heavy armor, and some people care about saving against Fireball. If you're a heavy armor wearing warrior Strength is high. If not it's dumped. A good number of classes need Charisma, so it gets dumped by those who don't need it. Intelligence is not a high priority for the most number of characters. If you want to blame someone blame 5E. Players are no way in the wrong for choosing to ignore it as much as their character can.

Those who don't optimize as much will put points into Intelligence. They may care about Knowledge skills or for their personal fun don't want to think of their character as dumb. It may not even be a purposeful choice and just do what they feel like. They don't care so much as optimisers about hit points or initiative or Wisdom saves. They may not even know why optimisers care so much about it.

[zinycor]

It's a combination of Point Buy and optimization. Point Buy is an inherently zero sum system. Players rightfully prioritize what their class needs and no one needs Intelligence except the Wizard. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster have some need, but they are specific archetypes where as all wizards need Intelligence. After that players tend to focus on saving throws, so if they didn't need Wisdom before they need it now with what's left over from their prime. Constitution is needed for the hit points. Dexterity is needed for the initiative, AC for non-heavy armor, and some people care about saving against Fireball. If you're a heavy armor wearing warrior Strength is high. If not it's dumped. A good number of classes need Charisma, so it gets dumped by those who don't need it. Intelligence is not a high priority for the most number of characters. If you want to blame someone blame 5E. Players are no way in the wrong for choosing to ignore it as much as their character can.

Those who don't optimize as much will put points into Intelligence. They may care about Knowledge skills or for their personal fun don't want to think of their character as dumb. It may not even be a purposeful choice and just do what they feel like. They don't care so much as optimisers about hit points or initiative or Wisdom saves. They may not even know why optimisers care so much about it.

Emphasis mine

I say that people that don't optimize as much may put points into intelligence.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

[Ganders]

Mechanically, they should have given us another Intelligence based character other than Wizard. I am still hoping we will get an improved version of Artificer to fill that role.

The warlock was supposed to be an INT class. It is an ongoing travesty that they were changed. Not just for balancing the stat distributions a bit, but also for varying the skills available in parties, and toning down some of the most effective multiclasses (like Paladin-Warlock and Sorcerer-Warlock), among other things.

[Knaight]

It's a combination of Point Buy and optimization. Point Buy is an inherently zero sum system. Players rightfully prioritize what their class needs and no one needs Intelligence except the Wizard. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster have some need, but they are specific archetypes where as all wizards need Intelligence.

The same thing applies to rolling - it's just an ordinal scale, where intelligence is still likely to end up getting the worst roll, which is likely to be below average.

[Luccan]

The warlock was supposed to be an INT class. It is an ongoing travesty that they were changed. Not just for balancing the stat distributions a bit, but also for varying the skills available in parties, and toning down some of the most effective multiclasses (like Paladin-Warlock and Sorcerer-Warlock), among other things.

It's funny, I have nothing against Int Warlock in a mechanical sense, it might have helped even thing out a bit, but it strikes me as odd in a thematic sense. Warlocks don't really study* for their powers, they just get them from their patron. I feel like Charisma fits thematically because it is exercising their will over the power their patron has granted them. Most patrons probably don't care to instruct the Warlock and if they can't handle the power on their own, well, hopefully the next guy won't turn into a red stain on the wall. I don't know, like I said, it might have balanced things out, but I can understand why it's Charisma (other than legacy).

Incidentally, this is why I'm glad saves denoted as Will that are tied to Wisdom are no longer a thing. Charisma always seemed like the force of will stat, while Wisdom strikes me as the spiritual understanding stat. So it goes to the two religious full casters and the punchy philosopher. And the Ranger, which thinking on how most Rangers I've seen aren't particularly spiritual, maybe Ranger could've been switched up to Int this edition? It makes sense considering their magic seems to be more "tricks to survive" than powers granted by a spiritual force. I mean, they work like EKs and ATs, with a small range of spells they know. But I guess that would've made them pretty MAD for 5e, since they already need Wis, Con, and either Dex or Str. Even with spells shifting to Int, they would have to have a few Wisdom skills too.

*Well, Tomelocks do, but only for certain things and even then you have to take a specific Invocation to do it. Otherwise it's just some cantrips you know so long as you hold onto a book.

[Pex]

The same thing applies to rolling - it's just an ordinal scale, where intelligence is still likely to end up getting the worst roll, which is likely to be below average.

Dice rolling is not a zero sum system. If you only have one dump roll Strength and Charisma are as viable choices depending on character. Intelligence is always an option except for Wizards, but players can go ST/CH 8 IN 12 as easily as ST/CH 12 IN 8 if they don't care about ST/CH. With Point Buy you won't have a 12 and 8 left over as an optimizer. It's either 8 and 8, 8 and 10, or 10 and 10 and 10 if the player doesn't want any 8s. Between an 8 and 10, a +1 difference doesn't matter for Knowledge rolls, but for ST it matters whether you can jump the 10 ft pit and the character will be making many more social rolls than knowledge rolls so +0 CH is worth having a lot more than -1 CH. They're still the lowest priority ability scores, but the player is still optimizing trying to eke out where +0 will gain more than the -1 will cost.

[Luccan]

If you don't like players simply knowing weaknesses or strength of a monster, then you will have to spend some time customizing your monsters or giving them different descriptions.

If you describe a creature like a half-pig man, people will not think of it as an Orc (Unless they played old school DnD, in which case: 1.- They are awesome, 2.- You have them happy to bring half-pig orcs back).

If you describe the troll as having a hair made of fire, and they still attack him with fire, maybe the troll won't even be damaged. Now he is vulnerable to cold damage.

Also, this. Make sure knowledge matters for things other than monsters and to make it matter for monsters, change them up. You don't even have to change them completely, your players could know that giant, humanish, green monster is a troll, but it's in the desert and desert trolls have developed resistance to heat so now only acid works.

[Tetrasodium]

int used to give extra skill points, languages, andas a result kind of extra skills so didn't reallly have any saves targeting it. Now that int does none of those things, the lack of saves targeting it is much more noteworthy. I wonder what the side effects of giving an extra [roficient skill per ++/- 2 points of int from 10 might be over time.

[Knaight]

Dice rolling is not a zero sum system. If you only have one dump roll Strength and Charisma are as viable choices depending on character.

A 10 is hardly rare as the 5th worst point buy placed stat, and the odds of getting a 5th best roll of 10 or higher is only 71.62%. Odds are pretty good you're dumping two stats. Meanwhile for the 6th worst rolled stat the odds of a 10% or above is only 31.49%. Looking at aggregates pretty much the same patterns fall out of both systems.

[Luccan]

int used to give extra skill points, languages, andas a result kind of extra skills so didn't reallly have any saves targeting it. Now that int does none of those things, the lack of saves targeting it is much more noteworthy. I wonder what the side effects of giving an extra [roficient skill per ++/- 2 points of int from 10 might be over time.

I will say, the step down is notable, but the problem with Int giving more skills this edition is that there are significantly fewer. A non-rogue Gnome who rolled could have more skills than most non-gnomish rogues. I'd say give them tool proficiency instead, but that would probably end up being universally thieves tools, then alchemy or herbalist tools, some kind of crafting tool relevant to magic items. And languages seem to be purposefully limited this edition as well, to the point where Rangers getting two of them is part of an early class feature, rather than a separate ribbon like Druidic.

[Ganymede]

Meh, my barbarian has an Intelligence of 14 and proficiency in a bunch of knowledge skills and relevant tools.

Then again, she's a wizard's academy dropout and you can't get in to begin with without being at least somewhat smart.

[zinycor]

Depends. They can easily turn annoying and frustrating, especially when players use "dumb" to mean "is unable to take anything seriously".

There's a difference between playing someone who's dim-witted and someone who shows his butt to the Duke "because that's what my character would do, he's dumb".

If the player doesn't take anythign seriously, is not because his character is dumb, is because he isn't taking ir as seriously as you would want and point.

If your player wants to make his character show his butt to the king... Am sorry dude, but making the character smarter will not face the issue here.

The character stats has absolutely no influence in a player that may be disrupting for your campaign.

Don't fix out of game problems with game solutions, never, NEVER, works out.

[Luccan]

If your player wants to make his character show his butt to the king... Am sorry dude, but making the character smarter will not face the issue here.

If he shows his butt to the king, he's just Forrest Gump.

[ZorroGames]

It definitely doesn't help that a lot of DMs completely ignore Investigation and just lump everything into Perception.


My experience us just the opposite. As long as someone else in the party has high perception or I can kick up to 15+ I generally do not select that skill at the local AL tables.

[Tanarii]

My experience us just the opposite. As long as someone else in the party has high perception or I can kick up to 15+ I generally do not select that skill at the local AL tables.
The problem with that is you need a sentinel shield or weapon of warning or class feature to avoid surprise.

I agree that geberally speaking, perception is a bit overrated. Scouts or front rankers generally need it far more than other ranks.

[Ganders]

Warlocks don't really study* for their powers, they just get them from their patron.

The common argument against that is to point to the PHB.

The one-sentence description of warlocks says "Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden" which is then explained with "Drawing on the ancient knowledge of (patrons), warlocks piece together arcane secrets."

Compare that to the sorcerer description "Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them", which is then clarified with "One can't study sorcery as one learns a language".

Yes, warlocks are granted odd powers, even alterations to their very bodies. But then in the ten sentences under 'Delvers into Secrets' we see things like:

insatiable need for knowledge and power
thirst for knowledge and power
pouring over tomes of forbidden lore
brilliant but crazed
study and research

and remember that all of the above applies to all warlocks, not just tomelocks.

The original thrust of warlocks seems to have been uncovering forbidden lore and arcane secrets, and thirsting for knowledge. While you *could* find knowledge in books, I tend to think more of movies like Indiana Jones and National Treasure and Tomb Raider where it's more about uncovering secrets in out-of-the-way places, or solving puzzles, or even simply eavesdropping. Taking the most popular invocation as an example: 'Learning the secret of how to increase the power of your cantrips' has a rather different implication than 'being granted the innate ability to increase the power of your cantrips'. You end up thinking that a warlock *learns* his spells rather than just having them bestowed like a cleric would.

[Unoriginal]

It's funny, I have nothing against Int Warlock in a mechanical sense, it might have helped even thing out a bit, but it strikes me as odd in a thematic sense. Warlocks don't really study* for their powers, they just get them from their patron. I feel like Charisma fits thematically because it is exercising their will over the power their patron has granted them. Most patrons probably don't care to instruct the Warlock and if they can't handle the power on their own, well, hopefully the next guy won't turn into a red stain on the wall. I don't know, like I said, it might have balanced things out, but I can understand why it's Charisma (other than legacy).

Incidentally, this is why I'm glad saves denoted as Will that are tied to Wisdom are no longer a thing. Charisma always seemed like the force of will stat, while Wisdom strikes me as the spiritual understanding stat. So it goes to the two religious full casters and the punchy philosopher. And the Ranger, which thinking on how most Rangers I've seen aren't particularly spiritual, maybe Ranger could've been switched up to Int this edition? It makes sense considering their magic seems to be more "tricks to survive" than powers granted by a spiritual force. I mean, they work like EKs and ATs, with a small range of spells they know. But I guess that would've made them pretty MAD for 5e, since they already need Wis, Con, and either Dex or Str. Even with spells shifting to Int, they would have to have a few Wisdom skills too.

*Well, Tomelocks do, but only for certain things and even then you have to take a specific Invocation to do it. Otherwise it's just some cantrips you know so long as you hold onto a book.


The common argument against that is to point to the PHB.

The one-sentence description of warlocks says "Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden" which is then explained with "Drawing on the ancient knowledge of (patrons), warlocks piece together arcane secrets."

Compare that to the sorcerer description "Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them", which is then clarified with "One can't study sorcery as one learns a language".

Yes, warlocks are granted odd powers, even alterations to their very bodies. But then in the ten sentences under 'Delvers into Secrets' we see things like:

insatiable need for knowledge and power
thirst for knowledge and power
pouring over tomes of forbidden lore
brilliant but crazed
study and research

and remember that all of the above applies to all warlocks, not just tomelocks.

The original thrust of warlocks seems to have been uncovering forbidden lore and arcane secrets, and thirsting for knowledge. While you *could* find knowledge in books, I tend to think more of movies like Indiana Jones and National Treasure and Tomb Raider where it's more about uncovering secrets in out-of-the-way places, or solving puzzles, or even simply eavesdropping. Taking the most popular invocation as an example: 'Learning the secret of how to increase the power of your cantrips' has a rather different implication than 'being granted the innate ability to increase the power of your cantrips'. You end up thinking that a warlock *learns* his spells rather than just having them bestowed like a cleric would.


Warlocks' spells are *not* bestowed by the Patron. People often makes that mistake, but it's not the case.

At its most basic level, the Warlock's Pact goes like that: the soon-to-be-Warlock and the Patron have a contact, and during it the Warlock gets a spark of power. The Patron might demand a favor in exchange (that can be things like "give me a magic item" or "dedicate yourself to accomplish my cult's goals"), could do it for "free" as it furthers their objectives anyway, or even not being aware of the Warlock siphoning a bit of their power.

Once the Warlock gets the spark, though, the Patron can't get it back and can't do anything special to the Warlock. It's a one-time-interaction. Of course, a Patron could add conditions to the pact to control the Warlock more, but it's not a given.

Now, some Patrons will teach their Warlocks how to use their powers. But it's a teacher-student relationship, not a god-who-grants-their-chosen-ones-powers.

Often, to accomplish the contact with the Patron, and then to master their powers, the Warlock will be a scholar of secret lore and a seeker of weird knowledge. A Warlock who can stay up all night, every night, forever, isn't because their Patron granted them that capacity, it's because they developed that pretty peculiar ability from their own power.

HOWEVER, unlike the Wizard's magic, the Warlock's doesn't come from an intellectual understanding of the background magic field of the universe. No, their magic is a mastery and an use of that spark of power they got from their Patron, and it uses Charisma, just like a Pit Fiend's capacity to hurl an unlimited number of Fireballs.

[greenstone]

I've noticed from the 5e campaigns that I have played thus far, that the INT stat has fallen by the way side.

That makes me wonder if their DMs have been ignoring one of the pillars of the game.

[Ganders]

Warlocks' spells are *not* bestowed by the Patron. People often makes that mistake, but it's not the case.

It doesn't help that the word 'bestow' appears several times, including in the sections for Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanums. The word 'bestow' is not actually used in the cleric or druid sections, but there is a line in the Spellcasting chapter that refers to spells 'bestowed by a deity'. It only says that the patron bestows the facility to do magic or various bits of knowledge, not that the patron bestows the actual spells or powers the spells themselves. But it's easy to see why people would sieze upon that particular word.

[Tanarii]

"Bestowed" power doesn't mean like clerics. That still implies power that is given once and can't be taken back. And for Pact Magic, patrons definitely do some bestowing of power, it says so right in the feature. But also the warlock learning some on their own from arcane research. Their ability to cast spells comes from both.

Clerics are explicitly a conduit for divine power. It is "granted".