Why is intelligence such a dump stat? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

The Jack

2018-03-23, 11:04 AM

In 5e, if you're not a wizard (please consider this thread as a concern for those not playing the god-class) , Int is something you get for RP reasons, for being that knowledge skill monkey. You might want intelligence for an Eldritch knight or arcane trickster, but you can really pick your spells for them in such a way that your intelligence doesn't matter. furthermore, the pointbuy -1 to your int ability score isn't really something most people have to rollplay, hell, I've had DM's that were always playing up with that stat...

In older editions, if you weren't a wizard, int would mean more skills or more languages, in this edition it means the off chance you meet an intellect devourer you'll be a little more likely to survive, and you might know what a trap does, besides it being a trap.

Now, strength isn't strictly useful for all classes, and is often dumped in this edition, but there are reasons to take it depending on if your DM uses variant rules on encumbrance or correctly interprets acrobatics vs athletics, but int has no use to most characters beyond some disparate knowledges that most often don't have practical application. If you look at any guides on this wonderful forum, you'll be hard pressed to find something that doesn't say dump it.
Why is Int so awful this edition?

smcmike

2018-03-23, 11:07 AM

Because this is a game about adventurers, not librarians.

DireSickFish

2018-03-23, 11:09 AM

Nifft

2018-03-23, 11:18 AM

Because this is a game about adventurers, not librarians.

Point of order: Librarians can be fantastic adventurers.

Citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDx-wNcuUU

MaxWilson

2018-03-23, 11:21 AM

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 11:24 AM

When they simplified skills they removed the secondary benefit int was giving to all characters. In previous editions Charisma was the stat this applied to. Now there's so many Charisma casters that it isn't really a common dump stat.

They neglected to find a good secondary thing for it to do other than being the stat with the most skills attached to it. But a lot of those skills are easy for a player to ignore, and are veyr DM dependent.

They removed all three of the secondary and tertiary things Int did. It doesn't give additional skill points, it doesn't give additional languages (which could be a concern in some campaigns or for some characters, especially since you can't use skill points to learn languages and the time required by the rules is too long for mid-campaign), and it's not a prerequisite for feats like Combat Expertise.

Morty

2018-03-23, 11:26 AM

It's the same in 5E as it was in 4E. Skill points were removed due to being clunky and hard to use, but without them intelligence lost most of its value for characters who don't cast with it or otherwise use it for class features. And nothing was introduced to replace it.

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 11:26 AM

Because people play in games with DMs that don't make Int checks useful.

Edit: each individual's Int checks useful that is.

Eric Diaz

2018-03-23, 11:27 AM

Hecuba

2018-03-23, 11:28 AM

Point of order: Librarians can be fantastic adventurers.

Citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDx-wNcuUU

Indeed: http://readordie.wikia.com/wiki/Special_Operations_Division

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 11:29 AM

Well I prefer to dump CH but I never play “face” character even with high Charisma and my penchant for Mountain Dwarf, occassionalyl Human, and uncommonly Gnome characters is known in our FLGS/AL games.

Skills do not commonly require high intelligence and there is reason for a non-Wizard to fear 95% of situations and 98% of likely monsters. The penalty of -1 is something you can prepare to minimize. Not Dopey or Grumpy but more like Doc.

nickl_2000

2018-03-23, 11:29 AM

Because many of the things that adventurers do is inherently stupid.

"Hey there is a deep dark cave that several people have gone into and never come out, I should explore it"

However, not having this aspect makes for a very boring game (at least to me)

Millstone85

2018-03-23, 11:41 AM

Asmotherion

2018-03-23, 11:56 AM

Because this is a game about adventurers, not librarians.

I see this as a perfect answear.

Unless it's your job (profficiency), you are not supposed to know too much about the world on a medieval setting.

Investing a bit into it can be good for all casters as it gives a bonus to Arcana.

10 is the average inteligence. The average does not mean that your random person is going to always have 10, but rather that a random person is as probable to have an 8 as he is to have a 12, and anything in between, and the total average is a 12.

13 is above average, considered exceptional, thus is the entry minimum for the Wizard class.

14 is probably the point were you can call someone a Genious.

By making Int a less optimal Ability to invest in, you also make sure that not all people in the party are top level geniouses who could make the next discovery in technology. If they did, what are they even adventuring for? They would be able to find a solution from the safety of their labs.

An other implication is the fact that, wile your character might indeed have 20 Inteligance, you as a Player can't actually handle Role Playing such an intelligent character.

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 11:57 AM

Here are the most common dump stats I see IMC, which has a large number of characters, by class:

Barbarian: Int
Bard: Wis or Str (Lore), Wis or Int (Valor)
Cleric: Cha or Int (Med Armor), Dex (Heavy)
Druid: Cha
Fighter: Int (Dex-based), Dex (Str-based)
Monk: Cha
Paladin: Dex
Ranger: Cha
Rogue: Wis, occasionally Str
Sorcerer: Str
Warlock: Str except for Str-blade locks, then Wis or Int
Wizards: Str

(Where I wrote or, it's roughly equal.)

Int dumping isn't the norm by any means. Also, I use variant encumbrance, so that makes Str a bit more valuable. Arcane casters still commonly dump though.

Edit: adding caveats to my post per some back and forth below: my campaign is single class, no feats, and uses standard array or rolled stats (players choice). This all affects the above.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 12:01 PM

It might just be a personal/anecdotal issue, but I suspect that not only are DMs against letting characters act on player knowledge, they also dislike letting players act on character knowledge. It is like the PCs just woke up in the setting.

Charisma is even worse, despite being a more common spellcasting ability.

Charisma has a few major power points: Deception and Persuasion are keyed to Charisma, and a Hexblade Warlock 2 dip gets a player Charisma to attack and damage with melee attacks and a d10 ranged cantrip. So something like Bard x/Warlock 2 gets Cha to attack, damage, supporting spellcasting and supporting its primary skills. Int would probably be less common as a pure dump stat if there were an easy-to-access dip (Warmage 2 or something) that gave +Int to attack and damage, or to AC, or to Initiative or really any combat roll.

DireSickFish

2018-03-23, 12:06 PM

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 12:06 PM

For purposes of clarity in this thread is “dumping” a stat a case of 8 or 9 or just significantly low average (such as 10-11.)

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 12:07 PM

Int dumping isn't the norm by any means. Also, I use variant encumbrance, so that makes Str a bit more valuable. Arcane casters still commonly dump though.

For how many classes is Int one of the 3 most important stats?

Barb, Bard, Cler, Dru, Ftr, Mnk, Pal, Rng, Sorc, Wlk all probably don't prioritize Int top 3, though it's possible on a case-by-case basis for Dex-based non-face characters that intend to dump Str and Cha. Rogues might prioritize Int after Dex and Con, but Wis is just as valid; Perception is quite valuable for a scout. Certainly an Arcane Trickster would be more likely to go Int, as would an Eldritch Knight, but those are one subclass out of a larger set.

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 12:08 PM

I think all the people approaching this from a flavor perspective are missing the point. It's getting dumped not because people want to play dumb characters, or the designers intended for dumb characters to be the norm. But that there is very little reason to put points into Int over other stats.
It helps quite a lot if as a DM you allow Investigation to do its job, instead of making everything a Perception check.

For how many classes is Int one of the 3 most important stats?
That's a different question from which one is the most common dump stat, ie 8 unless you're rolling. (In AL or other PB you might have multiple dumps, of course.)

The answer is commonly top three for Wizards, EKs, ATs. It's also sometimes top three for other Rogues (because investigation), as well as Lore Bards, Druids, and Warlocks (because Lore skills).

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 12:10 PM

Here are the most common dump stats I see IMC, which has a large number of characters, by class:

Barbarian: Int
Bard: Wis or Str (Lore), Wis or Int (Valor)
Cleric: Cha or Int (Med Armor), Dex (Heavy)
Druid: Cha
Fighter: Int (Dex-based), Dex (Str-based)
Monk: Cha
Paladin: Dex
Ranger: Cha
Rogue: Wis, occasionally Str
Sorcerer: Str
Warlock: Str except for Str-blade locks, then Wis or Int
Wizards: Str

(Where I wrote or, it's roughly equal.)

Int dumping isn't the norm by any means. Also, I use variant encumbrance, so that makes Str a bit more valuable. Arcane casters still commonly dump though.

Most of those make sinle class character sense in a stereotypical character build.

MC would suggest that a ST Fighter 1 matched with blade Warlock or Wizard would dump differently in some cases.

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 12:14 PM

Most of those make sinle class character sense in a stereotypical character build.

MC would suggest that a ST Fighter 1 matched with blade Warlock or Wizard would dump differently in some cases.
Single class, no feats, standard array encouraged for new players but rolling allowed, and variant encumberance. All of those affect the way characters are made.

As does how and when I call for checks, obviously.

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 12:15 PM

It helps quite a lot if as a DM you allow Investigation to do its job, instead of making everything a Perception check.

My DMs use investigation over Perception unless it is a potential ambush. To me that is like seeing the trip wire another character is to about to activate when I see them look down at their notes where they wrote passive perceptions. My brain kicks into combat mode immediately. Maybe if they varied where they wrote it on their notepads it would not be such a ‘tell.’

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 12:23 PM

Single class, no feats, standard array encouraged for new players but rolling allowed, and variant encumberance. All of those affect the way characters are made.

As does how and when I call for checks, obviously.

LOL, being “old school” (in your slight) and AL gaming currently I find allowing what is in the PHB makes entry level characters makes for more fun in my gaming for experienced players.

I would not stop a newbie from choosing any of the acceptable AL methods of creation although a word to the wise about starting simple would be offered. If someone, despite their statements, obviously has not read the PHB about a class, insists in playing a more subtle class they should expect to crash and burn.

Have fun with your game.

smcmike

2018-03-23, 12:27 PM

Ralanr

2018-03-23, 12:34 PM

Because Intellect Devourers. ;-)

(Seriously, even if I didn't like decent Int for roleplaying reasons, Intellect Devourers alone might be enough reason for me not to dump it. Who wants to be permanently stunned in a single action by a CR 2 creature? Eventually you can fix it, if you have access to a level 9+ cleric/druid/bard/celestialock, but unless and until then you're a drooling vegetable. I'd rather have Wis 5 than Int 5, mostly for roleplaying reasons, but Intellect Devourers are certainly a reason why I don't feel I'm paying a RP tax.)

Not to mention basically being killed for failing an int save.

Those brain puppies are terrifying.

2D8HP

2018-03-23, 12:36 PM

Because running towards monsters instead of away from monsters isn't particularly intelligent or wise, as bold =/= smart. I worked construction for over a decade, and I had words for those of us who risked crippling injuries to "get-er-done' faster:

Chumps, saps, idiots, and dumb[expletive deleted]'s

Also I seldom play spellcasters,and often "dump" INT, WIS, and CHA. becausr it just breaks verisimilitude to try and role-play smarter, wiser, and more charming than I am, and if I'm generous to myself maybe I hit the IRL equivalent of 12 in any of those stats in my youth, but I'm lucky if I'm even the equivalent of an 8 in any stat now.

High INT PC's work if I'm "roll-playing" not "role-playing", and no slur on other players real-life intelligence, but how I usually see other PC's played indicates that the character are dumb[expletive deleted]'s as well.

Yeah, some make up in-character reasons for their PC's to be desperate enough become adventurers, but barring bad luck it would be smarter to go into safer lines of work.

If you have some suggestions for reasons smart PC's have to become adventurers, please let me know so I may totally steal the back-stories the next time a DM wants one my mistaken way of thinking is corrected

Morty

2018-03-23, 12:52 PM

If the GM calls for a lot of flat Int checks without any associated skills, what happens is that wizards, eldritch knights and other characters who actually use Int will have a slightly or moderately better chance of passing them. That will probably hurt characters with 10 or less Int, but it's unlikely to make them wish they'd invested more into it than the stats their classes and skills demand.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 12:53 PM

If you have some suggestions for reasons smart PC's have to become adventurers, please let me know so I may totally steal the back-stories the next time a DM wants one my mistaken way of thinking is corrected

Because caution and risk avoidance aren't necessarily captured by the Intelligence stat, and many smart people do very risky things. What they are often good at is assessing risk versus reward. Risk of death versus reward of a few hours off isn't worth it; risk of death versus reward of ultimate cosmic power very well could be. Ambition isn't part of Int, or any other stat.

JellyPooga

2018-03-23, 12:59 PM

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 01:04 PM

LOL, being “old school” (in your slight)
My game is constructed to have a BECMI feel (as best I can), with west marches influences, including being a large open table sandbox. That gives it some very specific influences, and I should have put caveats in my post.

I don't use old school as a slight. It's either a compliment or an observation.

Also, you're aware that multiclassing, feats, and point buy are all optional rules, right? I choose not to use these optional rules because they don't result in the feel I wanted for my campaign.

hex37

2018-03-23, 01:06 PM

It's also worth mentioning how incredibly rare Intelligence checks/saving throws are outside of skill rolls. And, even when an effect is an intelligence check, a failure wastes a turn more often than kills you, and usually gives you a roll chance on subsequent turns. The only REALLY HORRIFYING Intelligence saving throw I know of is for Feeblemind.

Though, if your DM is throwing Feeblemind at you, you've likely done something very wrong already.

strangebloke

2018-03-23, 01:17 PM

This a beating a dead horse, but I'll try:

Str/Cha/Int are "attack" abilities. You mostly use them if you have a particular skill, spell or feature that you want to use.

Dex/Con/Wis are more "defensive", and because of that they are useful to everybody.

If Int is a dump stat, you could say the same for Cha and, up to a point, Str.

Of course, this is an oversimplification.

http://i65.tinypic.com/2h2mphs.png

Pretty much spot-on. There is also third use for stats that I'd call 'utility' and for that I'd lable CHA, WIS, and DEX as the most important, since those are tied to all of the important opposed checks.

Int just ain't all that good.

MaxWilson

2018-03-23, 01:31 PM

It's also worth mentioning how incredibly rare Intelligence checks/saving throws are outside of skill rolls. And, even when an effect is an intelligence check, a failure wastes a turn more often than kills you, and usually gives you a roll chance on subsequent turns. The only REALLY HORRIFYING Intelligence saving throw I know of is for Feeblemind.

Perma-stun and/or body snatching from Intellect Devourers doesn't horrify you as much as Feeblemind?

The Jack

2018-03-23, 01:39 PM

Because GM's aren't willing (for fear of reprisal) to enforce a "Baldric's Cunning Plan" effect. To whit; any player playing an Int-dumped character that comes up with a strategy, tactic or plan misses out on some kind of vital piece of information that makes that plan...well, just so incredibly stupid to anyone with half a brain. This can easily be enforced with passive Int checks.

Maybe that's because implementing Baldric's cunning plan is a cunning plan Baldric would've thought up. A -1 doesn't give you an excuse to be a colossal ass to somebody, and even in the case of -2's or -3's, A smart player with a dumb character should be able to help a dumb player with a smart character. A small detail would piss me off, anything that would make me seem "*so incredibly stupid to anyone with half a brain" would have me leave the table.

*Many stupid people would consider a smart move that they didn't understand to be stupid.

strangebloke

2018-03-23, 01:48 PM

The Jack

2018-03-23, 01:48 PM

If you have some suggestions for reasons smart PC's have to become adventurers, please let me know so I may totally steal the back-stories the next time a DM wants one my mistaken way of thinking is corrected

Why do smart people join the military or any of the services? They've got bonds, duty, obligation, or they think if they do it, someone else doesn't have to.

Also, Maybe I'm a weird one, but sometimes I don't play like an adventurer. Last session I played we cleared out a bunch of necromancers that might've endangered the expanding empire's flank. We had some soldiers with us and my character really didn't want to lose any more. Anyhow, we found a lot of loot, mostly in trade goods (there used to be bandits before the necromancers moved in) and we found that there's an entrance to a drow settlement in the area that the necromancers had been trading with, they were in a dungeon. Going into a dungeon crawl given the circumstances would've been dumb, but then I get super excited... We're going to trade the loot we got from the necromancers for better things from the drow and that kind of high stakes trading really gets me going!

jas61292

2018-03-23, 01:51 PM

I actually always find it an amusing issue of perception that people find Int to be the dump stat. In a direct comparison, I find Int to be far more generally valuable than Charisma. The only thing is that Charisma is a much more common primary stat, and so people rarely compare them directly on their own merits. Instead they look at the lack of characters with Intelligence, and assume Int must be the weaker ability.

But, if you directly compare them, not only do I find the benefits of intelligence, such as Investigation, lore recollection, illusion resistance and more, to outweigh the general benefits of charisma, but they are also more generally useful in a party, because it is not as redundant. Two smart people attempting to recall lorere are more likely to succeed than a smart person and a dumb person. Person A failing to recall does not preclude person B from being able to. Charisma on the other hand often deals with tasks that, if a single individual fails, future success will be more difficult, if not impossible, so a second party member with high charisma will not help nearly as much. Furthermore, I believe it to be easier to circumvent charisma issues with other means. An inability to negotiate or intimidate a guard may be partially or fully overcome with a bribe or with stealth. Or even just with combat. An inability to figure out how a trap mechanism works with investigation can't be worked around as easily. You can't stealth your way by it (well maybe, trap depending). Nor can you intimidate it, bribe it, or fight it (probably). It is simply hard to get around a lack of intelligence. You can work through it (usually by disadvantaging yourself), but not around it. At least not without spending valuable resources.

MaxWilson

2018-03-23, 02:00 PM

Why do smart people join the military or any of the services? They've got bonds, duty, obligation, or they think if they do it, someone else doesn't have to.

When I was at AIF at Fort Benning I observed two kinds of people who enlisted as 11-B (infantry): those who scored so low on the ASVAB that they didn't qualify for any other MOS, and those who scored in the 98th or 99th percentile and chose to become infantry anyway. There were a surprising number of computer geeks.

I'm not sure who wound up happiest with their decision (I myself got injured about four months in and didn't make it through AIF) because I'm dead sure that the Army has no real idea how to properly utilize enlisted men with brains and initiative, but it sure was interesting to see.

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 02:00 PM

Person A failing to recall does not preclude person B from being able to.
Depends if it is a know/don't know check, or a know/get it wrong check. And if the party is discussing it. I'm a fan of group Int checks, include Lore checks. If everyone can check Int with one person getting the answer (One Success to Rule Them All checks) it's often not even worth gating the info behind a check, as someone is likely to succeed unless it's a very high DC. Whereas a group check, where the party is discussing the idea and arriving on a consensus, if the majority have bad info it can easily bring the group to a wrong conclusion. Obviously each kind of check should be used where appropriate, and individuals might believe they are "right" anyway in a group check.

Edit: similarly, Cha checks can quickly become group checks, if more than one PC gets involved.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 02:06 PM

JellyPooga

2018-03-23, 02:29 PM

Members of the Forum, I present Exhibit A: The Reprisal I was talking about:

Maybe that's because implementing Baldric's cunning plan is a cunning plan Baldric would've thought up. A -1 doesn't give you an excuse to be a colossal ass to somebody, and even in the case of -2's or -3's, A smart player with a dumb character should be able to help a dumb player with a smart character. A small detail would piss me off, anything that would make me seem "*so incredibly stupid to anyone with half a brain" would have me leave the table.

*Many stupid people would consider a smart move that they didn't understand to be stupid.

Put simply, a character with Int 8 or 9, literally does not have access to common knowledge without outside help. Anything that takes a DC:10 Int check to know or realise...an Int-dumped character can be assumed not to know, because they have a Passive Int Score of 9. We're not talking "you don't realise that knocking the brazier over will ignite the oil that's slicking the floor" stupid, but realising (in a contemporary setting) that bread contains wheat and could cause a severe reaction in a coeliac? Yup, your character didn't realise that unless someone told them or they've experienced it for themselves (and even then they may have forgotten). Sound stupid? It's supposed to; you dumped Int remember? If you can imagine someone famously dull posting it on Facebook or Twitter, you're probably thinking along the right lines. If your character comes up with a plan that assumes any "Easy" (DC:10) knowledge; Ban-hammer, XP penalty, or other reprimand for metagaming. Play. Your. Character.

I've got no problem with players helping one another out, but when it comes to characters spit-balling ideas and talking among themselves, you'd better watch that dump-stat. It's the small details that your character is supposed to be missing and every now and then you're going to seem like a complete fool (much as even the most intelligent people do, only less often). If that's going to make you leave the table then don't play characters that dump Int, because if you're trying to play a dumb character like he's a smart one, you're playing the wrong game.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 02:34 PM

If that's going to make you leave the table then don't play characters that dump Int, because if you're trying to play a dumb character like he's a smart one, you're playing the wrong game.

I presume you also give massive bonuses to characters with 20 Int, because their three standard deviations above genius level intelligence means they'll anticipate problems that ordinary mortals like, say, the player might not.

JellyPooga

2018-03-23, 02:46 PM

I presume you also give massive bonuses to characters with 20 Int, because their three standard deviations above genius level intelligence means they'll anticipate problems that ordinary mortals like, say, the player might not.

I do give bonuses to characters with Int 20; namely I assume they know pretty much anything that would require a DC:15 Int check (because, you know, Passive Int Score of 15). I will inform that player of esoteric pieces of information about their locales and foes, I might point out otherwise obscure connections between nuggets of information that such a character might piece together intuitively and so forth. If the Player does something stupid with that information, that's their call; no-one's perfect. If someone does something smart with the limited information I gave their Int 8 character, that's also fine. What isn't fine is an Int 8 character acting as though he's of average Intelligence or higher...because he shouldn't, isn't and (in my games) won't.

Needless to say, most of my players don't dump Int. Stupid characters die stupid deaths.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 02:49 PM

CTurbo

2018-03-23, 02:50 PM

I almost always dump Int, and if I want to play a particularly "smart" character for RP reasons, I'll dump Str. I don't think I have ever dumped any stat on purpose in 5e aside from Int and Str.

I'm not going to dump Con for obvious reasons
I'm not going to dump Dex because it's too useful in too many ways that don't need to be stated here.
I don't like dumping Wis mainly due to Perception which is the most common check that I can think of.
I don't like dumping Cha because I don't want my character easily intimidated, deceived, or persuaded.

Int checks are general less useful, and few characters actually rely on Int for anything.

I did play with one DM that really loved Int checks, but it was never really an issue that my guy had an 8 there.

Of course there are always exceptions as stated above

smcmike

2018-03-23, 02:58 PM

If your character comes up with a plan that assumes any "Easy" (DC:10) knowledge; Ban-hammer, XP penalty, or other reprimand for metagaming. Play. Your. Character.

Ugh. I hate this sort of punitive DMing. I agree that players should do their best to play their character, but handing out penalties like this just doesn’t seem helpful or fun. If you catch a player relying upon knowledge you think their character shouldn’t have, it seems better to make that knowledge false. You tried to mildly poison the celiac-sufferer with flour? That was potato flour, dummy.

The reverse is even more fun - giving a player who has a high INT mastermind character a lot of leeway in planning. Let them come up with ridiculously complicated plans and have them go off like clockwork.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-23, 03:02 PM

Ugh. I hate this sort of punitive DMing. I agree that players should do their best to play their character, but handing out penalties like this just doesn’t seem helpful or fun. If you catch a player relying upon knowledge you think their character shouldn’t have, it seems better to make that knowledge false. You tried to mildly poison the celiac-sufferer with flour? That was potato flour, dummy.

The reverse is even more fun - giving a player who has a high INT mastermind character a lot of leeway in planning. Let them come up with ridiculously complicated plans and have them go off like clockwork.

I have an instinctive resistance to any situation where the DM says something to the effect of "I know your character better than you do".

kardar233

2018-03-23, 03:15 PM

Int is just an insufficiently rewarded stat in this edition. Absent class synergies, it gets you:
- bonus to Int saves. A census noted that there are exactly four Int saves called for in the entire Monster Manual. I can only think of three spells that call for one: Phantasmal Force, Feeblemind, and Intellect Prison. Compare to the commonness of Dex or Wis saves.
- bonuses to Investigation, Arcana, History, and Religion. These are useful skills but I find they need investment, and with the paucity of skill points in 5e I feel like unless you’re a Rogue these are too big an opportunity cost. Compare to social skill bonuses from Charisma or Insight/Perception boosts from Wis.

Most classes need a primary stat, a secondary stat, and then Constitution. Once you’ve assigned those stats you might have one more decent roll to put somewhere. If you’re a Paladin, that might go into Dex, Int or Wis. A cleric might choose between Dex, Int or Cha. A Ranger archer would be choosing from Str, Int, and Cha.

Comparing the benefits you get from a decent Int bonus to what you’d get from putting that in Dex or Wis or Cha doesn’t look very appealing. Wis saves and checks are very common, as are Dex saves, and needing to convince someone or make a good impression is pretty important in any game that isn’t just a dungeon crawl.

Int just doesn’t earn you very much.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-23, 04:09 PM

I prefer not to dump int, outside of very specific characters.

I think the scores I usually dump are Strength and Wisdom. The former because I tend to favour Dex builds and don't usually play fighter types, the latter because I'm a masochist with an odd fascination for playing characters with no common sense. :smallwink:

That said, I can definitely see why Int would be considered a dump stat. So long as the group has one character to do the planning and make Investigation checks, any extra intelligence is going to be largely superfluous. Too many geniuses spoil the library, or however that saying goes.

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 04:40 PM

Choosing to cheerfully skip past a point and missing it are two different things.

So true, so true!

The Jack

2018-03-23, 04:48 PM

I do give bonuses to characters with Int 20; namely I assume they know pretty much anything that would require a DC:15 Int check (because, you know, Passive Int Score of 15). I will inform that player of esoteric pieces of information about their locales and foes, I might point out otherwise obscure connections between nuggets of information that such a character might piece together intuitively and so forth. If the Player does something stupid with that information, that's their call; no-one's perfect. If someone does something smart with the limited information I gave their Int 8 character, that's also fine. What isn't fine is an Int 8 character acting as though he's of average Intelligence or higher...because he shouldn't, isn't and (in my games) won't.

Needless to say, most of my players don't dump Int. Stupid characters die stupid deaths.

I could spit venom. I'm very happy I don't play in your games. What if was the god of Wis? Would my character still do stupid things for not having int? Would angry parents rush me with pitchforks were I to dare ask some on-street kids for directions when I had a 9 in charisma that meant I couldn't passively do some easy "10" social interaction and the parents thought I was a kidnapper? (alright, he could give wrong directions, but it doesn't sound like that's your cup of tea)

If this was WoD, where stats are 1-5 and explicitly labeled "bad,average,above average,excellent,peak human" then yeah, I'd consider knocking down something that's clearly outside the character's parameters, gently reminding the player that his character sheet doesn't correlate with what he wanted to do/say. Maybe I'd require rolls, maybe other npcs would be less interested in what they had to say. DnD doesn't have a "bad,Average,above average..." system. I mean, yes, 10's the midpoint, but what's average is just like, your opinion, man. Int is a mix of various aptitudes, just like charisma score could be attributed to good looks, excellent manner, manipulative skill or social dominance, but these features don't really have a correlation. IRL a good bit of "wisdom" or intelligence could mitigate a low "charisma".

When I was in high school, I saw a C grade as a failure, and only a B or A was a success. I was baffled by the notion that "foundation" papers existed for kids my age (still am, it's a dumb system), or that many people struggled for Cs. At the same time, there were kids who regularly would brag of A*'s that I never saw. My girlfriend's doing a masters physics degree, the stuff she writes down is downright intimidating to read, and I'm but a humble mortal to her and the people of her god-wizard course. At the same time she struggles to play DnD, it's all a bit too abstract for her.

Most of the players I play with aren't very smart, now I can't decide if I'm average and most people I know are idiots, or if I'm above average, they're average, and I know a few too many people in that Int17-20 range. But let's say at least one of my players thinks they're below average They'll probably want to believe they're in that Int8-9 range. If there's a character in that 8-9 range, and that character makes a plan (probably well within the confines of what the bellow average person thought up), and I decided that the plan was the plan of an average person and thus too good for the character, thus I needed to put in some ill-thought out joke reason for why it didn't work well, then I would be downright insulting a player at my table

That'd be some piss-poor GM'ing.

MaxWilson

2018-03-23, 04:51 PM

They removed all three of the secondary and tertiary things Int did. It doesn't give additional skill points, it doesn't give additional languages (which could be a concern in some campaigns or for some characters, especially since you can't use skill points to learn languages and the time required by the rules is too long for mid-campaign), and it's not a prerequisite for feats like Combat Expertise.

Per Xanathar's though, it does reduce the training time required to pick up a new tool proficiency (e.g. Disguise Kit). IIRC it's normally ten weeks, minus your Int modifier, though Xanathar's explicitly notes that DM judgment may modify that.

Mcdt2

2018-03-23, 04:53 PM

In my past few campaigns I've been toying with a houserule to help this. I took all the various "half-feats" that are strictly skill-based and/or ribbons, removed the stat increase, and classified them as "Skill Feats". For every point of Int mod, you get 1 skill feat for free. You can also gain them from the Skilled Feat (replacing a skill proficiency).

Still playtesting it (only seen maybe 7 characters made since I started this rule), but it seems to be helping in pushing people to consider Int boosts. Like, I haven't managed to convince a non-EK fighter to make it primary or anything, but they're putting it tertiary or quaternary, instead of dead last.

My biggest issue is mostly with the design of the skill feats themselves, most are dull, some good, but very niche and rarely come up.

FreddyNoNose

2018-03-23, 04:56 PM

You should add group checks based on average stat. So a group INT check failure is not great. So if most people are dumping it, there is a consequence!

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 05:25 PM

My game is constructed to have a BECMI feel (as best I can), with west marches influences, including being a large open table sandbox. That gives it some very specific influences, and I should have put caveats in my post.

I don't use old school as a slight. It's either a compliment or an observation.

Also, you're aware that multiclassing, feats, and point buy are all optional rules, right? I choose not to use these optional rules because they don't result in the feel I wanted for my campaign.

Usually I have found it used in a demeaning manner in person. If you are not being rude than I withdraw my bristle.

I am aware of all the optional aspects. That means using or not using is just that, optional. I prefer allowing the players as much freedom in their character design as possible within the limits of AL. Butbthat is just me I guess.

Run your game as suits your players and yourself as you see fit. I have had too many DMs say words to the effect that feel they lose “control” of the players. Their word - control.

This seems more of a difference is style so it is like stroganoff or Enchiladas, a matter of taste.

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 05:32 PM

That said, I can definitely see why Int would be considered a dump stat. So long as the group has one character to do the planning and make Investigation checks, any extra intelligence is going to be largely superfluous. Too many geniuses spoil the library, or however that saying goes.Yeah. DMs that use One Success to Rule Them All checks often make having more than one, maybe two at the outside, people with higher than an 8 in a stat pointless in terms of ability checks. That commonly goes for Sage characters (high Int + Lore), as well as Spotters (High Wis + Perception), Face (high Cha + social skills). It can even go for Brutes (high Str), Pickpockets (Dex + Slight of Hand), and Trap & Lock guys (Dex + Theirves Tools).

Whereas almost all DMs make Con checks matter on an individual level. And Stealth checks of course work on the reverse principle, where One Failure Rules Them All.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-23, 05:38 PM

You should add group checks based on average stat. So a group INT check failure is not great. So if most people are dumping it, there is a consequence!

That makes no sense, though. If you know something, you don't stop knowing it just because you're surrounded by people who don't.

Of course, whether those people will appreciate your knowledge or be able to follow any complex plan you dream up is another matter. But nevertheless a matter that should be in the hands of individual characters, not the DM.

Yeah. DMs that use One Success to Rule Them All checks often make having more than one, maybe two at the outside, people with higher than an 8 in a stat pointless in terms of ability checks. That commonly goes for Sage characters (high Int + Lore), as well as Spotters (High Wis + Perception), Face (high Cha + social skills). It can even go for Brutes (high Str), Pickpockets (Dex + Slight of Hand), and Trap & Lock guys (Dex + Theirves Tools).

Pretty much. Of course, it can become an issue if the party splits up (and there aren't enough Faces, Spotters, Investigators or whatever to go around). Or if someone else needs to perform the role. e.g. if you have a lowborn urchin who's your party face, and an uncharismatic noble, many people in high society will likely address the noble and expect him to act as the party Face (regardless of whether or not he's skilled at such).

ZorroGames

2018-03-23, 05:41 PM

Yeah. DMs that use One Success to Rule Them All checks often make having more than one, maybe two at the outside, people with higher than an 8 in a stat pointless in terms of ability checks. That commonly goes for Sage characters (high Int + Lore), as well as Spotters (High Wis + Perception), Face (high Cha + social skills). It can even go for Brutes (high Str), Pickpockets (Dex + Slight of Hand), and Trap & Lock guys (Dex + Theirves Tools).

Whereas almost all DMs make Con checks matter on an individual level. And Stealth checks of course work on the reverse principle, where One Failure Rules Them All.

The best DM I play with (were that they all were such) is careful to differentiate group checks from individual ones. Groups checks short of more than one “1” are dependent of the average and the difficulty of the check. Individual checks are more challenging, said the man who retired set of same color/same manufacturer dice that averaged coming up “1” about every other role for weeks on end.

It became a joke until a young but experienced DM agreed to use the dice on a critical roll against the party. Then the DM agreed they were “bad” dice... :smallwink:

They reside in the sin bin of shame in my basement. Now the joke with that DM is along the lines of, “Need another die for that roll?” “Uh, no thanks...”

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 05:51 PM

That makes no sense, though. If you know something, you don't stop knowing it just because you're surrounded by people who don't.It makes perfect sense if the individual may be right or wrong, and the group as a whole is discussing it and trying to arrive at the right information.

Any forum thread discussing a rule for an example of group Int (D&D lore) checks in action. Likewise, any time the party is discussing if they know something, a group Int check may be appropriate.

Pex

2018-03-23, 06:10 PM

So you run a game that's tailored to your own idiosyncratic style, and ask your players to conform to your biases. That's fine; it's your right as a GM. I'm sure folks at your table have a good time and enjoy themselves. I don't know that it's particularly applicable universally, though.

It isn't. An 8 IN character is still good at what he does best. He's not ignorant of everything. A warrior is trained to fight. He will know how. He will know about combat tactics. He knows enough to suggest to the party to focus fire or spread out and not be in fireball formation. A diplomat knows what words to say and what words not to say. He can come up with an inspiring speech. He can deal with politics and bureaucracy. Even from a game mechanics standpoint having an 8 IN doesn't mean the character is not proficient in a particular knowledge skill for a net positive plus to the roll. A 1st level 8 IN character proficient in Knowledge Religion is just as likely to succeed on a roll as a non-proficient smarter 12 IN character in Knowledge Religion.

JellyPooga

2018-03-23, 06:14 PM

That'd be some piss-poor GM'ing.

If you consider giving the players information based on who and what their characters are and, by extension, know, then I have little respect for your opinion of what does or doesn't make a good GM. Because that's what I'm talking about.

As for punitive GMing, I'm not neccesarily advocating extreme measures like XP penalties; I'm only making the point that whatever action you take by way of punitive measures in response to players metagaming, would be appropriate in that circumstance. Personally, I take the approach that giving the player in question the raised eyebrow of a disapproving GM does the trick; my players know that I play and run a heavily narrative game and that I take into account the stats, foci and goals of the characters in my game, such that if they don't "play by the rules", they may be changing or throwing out content I've included just for them.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-03-23, 06:16 PM

In my experience, INT is rarely the lowest stat. Not particularly emphasized, but I see CHA or STR dumped as much or more.

I had 3 groups until recently (one campaign finished)

1)
Monk, Warlock, AT rogue, land druid. STR was the universal dump stat, to the point that it was a running joke that the party strongman (the rogue) had a positive modifier. They rolled well, so no stats were particularly low, but STR was strongly de-emphasized.

2) Fighter and AT rogue, standard array. The fighter dumped DEX, the rogue dumped STR (or maybe CHA). Both have 12 INT or better.

3) Moon druid and wizard, standard array. Neither one dumped INT.

Current group (with me playing now): Wizard, warlock going bard (me), paladin, barbarian. I doubt anyone dumped INT particularly hard, but we rolled pretty well (no negative modifiers and lots of 11s/12s) so there's no particular "dump" stat for anyone.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-23, 06:17 PM

It makes perfect sense if the individual may be right or wrong, and the group as a whole is discussing it and trying to arrive at the right information.

But why then is the Int check performed as a group?

Surely each player should roll separately and are then given what information their character knows (or thinks they know) as a result of that check?

It's then up to the group to decide who's right (or who they believe). But surely this is something that should be done in character? Not with an abstract roll.

Any forum thread discussing a rule for an example of group Int (D&D lore) checks in action.

It really isn't. :smalltongue:

If anything, it's an example of individual Knowledge (Int) checks (to find/recall/deduce the appropriate information) combined with a Persuasion (Cha) check to convince others that your reading is the correct one.

Likewise, any time the party is discussing if they know something, a group Int check may be appropriate.

Could you elaborate on this?

Merudo

2018-03-23, 07:57 PM

There is no reason why the 6 stats should be well balanced.

What's important is for the *classes* to be well balanced.

For non-spellcasting purposes in 5e, Int < Cha < Wis. So in that sense, the stats are not balanced.

However, unbalanced stats make the game MORE balanced: the Wizard, arguably the strongest spellcaster, relies on Intelligence for spells, which reduces his efficiency.

Meanwhile, the Cleric and Druid are usually seen as weaker spellcasters, but at least they get high Wisdom which gives better saves, better Perception, etc.

Bards & Sorcerer are somewhat between the two.

2D8HP

2018-03-23, 08:10 PM

Again though, how many classes really want to assign one of their 3 highest scores to Int? Wizards, and EKs and Arcane Tricksters. Possibly Rogues, though it competes with Wis, which is probably the superior scouting stat....

In my limited experience, DM"s sometimes have Investigation instead of Perception to detect traps without triggering them, and the like, which greatly increases INT based rolls.

...a character with Int 8 or 9, literally does not have access to common knowledge without outside help....

OBJECTION!

(actually more like maybe so, maybe not, but being strident is more fun. Don't try any of that "common sense", "logic", or "proof" stuff on me, IT WON'T WORK!)

Also 8 and a 9 INT are just not that dumb.

Check it out:

A "Commoner" (common human) on page 345 of the Monster Manual has a ten in all stats, so that's average. We may infer that it's derived from the most likely result of rolling 3d6 for "stats" (as in the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons volume 1, Men & Magic).
The nearly actual odds for rolling each and every 3d6 sum, from 3 to 18 (rounded numbers) are:

3: 0.5% (actually 0.46, or 1 in 216, but rounded off for this table)
4: 1.4%
5: 2.8%
6: 4.6%
7: 6.9%
8: 9.7%
9: 11.6%
10: 12.5%
11: 12.5%
12: 11.6%
13: 9.7%
14: 6.9%
15: 4.6%
16: 2.8%
17: 1.4%
18: 0.5% (as 3’s note above)

So someone with a 10 INT is at least as smart as about 49.96% of humans.
Someone with a 9 is as at least as smart as about 37.46% of people.
And someone with an INT of 8 is at least as smart as 25.86% of folks.

Not too shabby!

A 7 INT person is only smarter than not much more than 16% of people.

Now in older editions (or by the dictionary definition of Wisdom), I would just describe someone with below average intelligence and above average wisdom as an older person (can't solve puzzles quickly, or remember last week, or where they put those reading glasses, but has "been around the block" enough that they unconsciously recognize patterns of "how it's going down").

A stereotypical teenager would be someone with higher INT but lower WIS.

I'm (for example) well aware that I simply don't have the "Mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill" that I had in my youth, and since most people who are now living are younger than me, it's easy to conclude that I'm below average, especially when I try to remember where I left my dang-blast reading glasses!

5e D&D has Wisdom as "Awareness, intuition, and insight", so "intuition" and "insight" fit well with classic definitions of wisdom, but "awareness" (as used in 5e D&D) is more having "the eyes of an eagle" and other acute senses ("I smell smoke" before anyone else for example), and I've made and played many a PC with low INT and high WIS, for example: an Outlander background, Wood Elf Rogue, with expertise in Perception and Stealth, and Proficiency in Medicine and Survival.

I played him like Jay Silverheels as Tonto:

http://nimst.tripod.com/cgi-bin/js1.jpg

(Tonto is Spanish for "fool" BTW, but Tonto was no fool).

Stilted and slow English/"Common" but very good environmental awareness.

Now it just so happens that I have some IRL folks in mind, as I work with quite a few guys that have a very hard time reading (out loud at least) as a few times a year we're required to take turns reading out loud safety instructions to each other and many of my co-workers have made me cringe given how badly they mangle words, not just the immigrants (which I expect) but my born in California co-workers, one in particular it's likely that his ancestors have been on this continent since at least the early 19th century, and he has had terrible grades (didn't get a high school diploma until he was in his late 40's) and isn't "book smart" at all but he often comes up with very good ideas on how to actually get tasks done, far better than most. Another former co-worker, also born in California, who actually went to College (unlike me), and has a skilled trade (electrician), but he just kept self-sabotaging himself with stupid behavior that lost him his wife, time with his son, and his job.

Given that electricians academic and trade accomplishments I have little doubt that he would score higher on an IQ or SAT quiz than most, so high INT, but he's still seems an idiot to me behavior-wise, as both me and the other California born guy on the crew told him what his plans and actions would probably cost him, so yes I've seen with my own eyes "low INT" guys acting wisely, and a "high INT" guy being a colossal dumb[expletive deleted].

....Stupid characters die stupid deaths.

By becoming adventurers, and going into dungeons in the first place!

I'm reminded that to get to be an apprentice plumber in the Vallejo local (which may lead to relatively good paying working-class job, but a dirty and dangerous one) the test (back wjen I took it) was pass/fail, and then an interview and scoring higher on the test than needed to pass added no weight to getting accepted because "All the guys who scored the highest usually quit"

...Most of the players I play with aren't very smart, now I can't decide if I'm average and most people I know are idiots, or if I'm above average, they're average, and I know a few too many people in that Int17-20 range. But let's say at least one of my players thinks they're below average They'll probably want to believe they're in that Int8-9 range. If there's a character in that 8-9 range, and that character makes a plan (probably well within the confines of what the bellow average person thought up), and I decided that the plan was the plan of an average person and thus too good for the character, thus I needed to put in some ill-thought out joke reason for why it didn't work well, then I would be downright insulting a player at my table

That'd be some piss-poor GM'ing.

Well said!

Even if we regard D&D players as having higher than the IRL equivalent of INT than average, I'm very doubtful that most tables don't have at least one player who is below average (every table I've sat at has!), and frankly people who live in a high IQ bubble and never deign to interact with the "lower" half of humanity tick me off anyway, so I should probably end with that before I get too far and start ranting on the need for tumbels and singing La Marseillaise, but still I say:

Cast off the Wizard oppressors, and keep INT a dump stat now and forever!

Tanarii

2018-03-23, 08:47 PM

But why then is the Int check performed as a group?

Surely each player should roll separately and are then given what information their character knows (or thinks they know) as a result of that check?

It's then up to the group to decide who's right (or who they believe). But surely this is something that should be done in character? Not with an abstract roll. Because that's what ability checks are. Abstract rolls that answer the question to be resolved. The question in this case is "does the party, who are discussing if they know something, arrive at the right information?" That's exactly the kind of thing group checks are for. Just as an individual check resolves if the individual arrives at the right information.

Ganymede

2018-03-23, 09:14 PM

Ignore everyone rationalizing Int-dumping by saying "it is inherently dumb to be an adventurer." People dump intelligence because investing in it doesn't offer many mechanical perks.

Then again, Intelligence is my high elf barbarian's second-highest score (it's tied with three others, but still).

2D8HP

2018-03-23, 11:52 PM

Ignore everyone rationalizing Int-dumping by saying "it is inherently dumb to be an adventurer."....

:confused:

"Everyone?"

Someone besides me?

Who's my sibling-in-arms?

Tanarii

2018-03-24, 01:28 AM

:confused:

"Everyone?"

Someone besides me?

Who's my sibling-in-arms?
It's pretty much a D&D tradition for Wizards to be the only particularly smart ones in an adventuring party. :smallwink:

Besides, as I said upthread, the only ones I commonly see dump Int, ending up actually below average for their race, are Barbarians, some fighters, and about half of Str-valor bards and Str-locks. All the ones you'd expect to have a few too many muscles in the head.

Gilrad

2018-03-24, 01:59 AM

I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on this:

INT is the problem solving and get-info-from-the-DM stat.

When asking the DM a question, the DM gives an answer based off the player's passive score. Gentleman's agreement to avoid metagaming by having the smart player with a dumb character tell the dumb player with a smart character the questions to ask the DM.

So obviously for knowledge: "what do I know about these strange runes?" could vary from "you know absolutely nothing" to "the runes are keeping an ancient evil sealed away and you don't want to disrupt the circle".

More abstractly, "Is it a good idea to drop the rope down here to get down past the guards?" could vary from "The rope would certainly hold your weight" to "if they spot you, you're a sitting duck and it seems incredibly risky".

You could even combine int with other skills. "What are my odds of swimming across this raging ravine?" athletics + int: from "The river looks just fine to you" to "it's rather risky but you feel like you could somehow reduce the risk".

JellyPooga

2018-03-24, 03:42 AM

OBJECTION!

8 and a 9 INT are just not that dumb.

It's not moronic, no. It is, however, low enough that they cannot routinely pass "Easy" tasks. Someone with 8 Con will fail at running a mile without stopping, someone with 8 Dex will probably drop something today and someone with 8 Int...well, let's just say they skip the puzzles page in the newspaper.

It's not about how many other people they're smarter than or as smart as, it's about the results. Int 8 means Passive Int 9 and a maximum of 19 if they roll. No matter how long that character spends, they literally cannot hit DC:20. For repeated, extended or everyday thinking, they don't hit DC:10 with their passive score. In order for an Int 8 character to hit those targets, he needs additional training (proficiency) or outside help (advantage). That's a significant difference to the Int 10 guy who can hit DC:20 by taking sufficient time and can hit DC:10 routinely with his passive. A Con 10 guy can run a mile, a Dex 10 guy probably won't drop anything today and an Int 10 guy...well, he can at least do the "Easy" Sudoku while on his commute to work and, if he was inclined, could probably do the "Killer" one given enough time. Int 8 guy can't.

Look, I'm not saying to treat Int 8 like a blithering idiot with the mental faculties of a lobotomized gibbon, only to appreciate the limitations such a character faces. Not in some hand-wavey "oh, they're about as smart as most people" way, but to realise that they're literally incapable of hitting those critical DC's. Int 8 characters might know the essentials of their profession, perhaps really well, but outside of that they simply fail to cut it; their deductive reasoning is poor, they struggle to recall basic facts and they are incapable of higher reasoning (i.e. anything you might consider "Hard"). That's what Int 8 actually means in game terms.

Tanarii

2018-03-24, 04:12 AM

Meta gaming is a myth. It only exists because the players and/or DM try to force it to exist.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-24, 04:38 AM

Because that's what ability checks are. Abstract rolls that answer the question to be resolved.

But they are supposed to resolve things that can't be decided in character. Not used to just outright control characters.

The question in this case is "does the party, who are discussing if they know something, arrive at the right information?"

That's not the question.

The question is "Does *anyone* in the party know the relevant information?"

You're deliberately changing the question just to screw over anyone with a good stat.

"Yeah, your character has studied this for years, but he's nevertheless certain that the 3 guys he's with - the ones he knows from experience are thick as two bricks - are right and that he's wrong. In spite of the plethora of information he's seen to the contrary, he believes them entirely when they say Mind Flayers are mo bigger than a human hand and completely harmless. In fact, his faith in his colleagues is so strong that it has erased all contrary information from his mind. Hah, that'll learn you for not dumping Int like the rest of the party!"

Just as an individual check resolves if the individual arrives at the right information.

Except that the group check erases both the individual checks and also all character interaction that might have resulted from such. :smallconfused:

Chugger

2018-03-24, 04:57 AM

High intelligence is not really a survival trait. I'm joking and not joking.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-24, 05:23 AM

Why would you ever call ability checks for routine things? Just to make a -1 modifier the steep threshold to being a helpless wreck in everyday matters, while the step between 0 and 1 or -1 and -2 are comparatively insignificant because they don't affect deterministic checks thrown at a character in order to manufacture ineptitude?

The Zoat

2018-03-24, 05:29 AM

It's not moronic, no. It is, however, low enough that they cannot routinely pass "Easy" tasks. Someone with 8 Con will fail at running a mile without stopping, someone with 8 Dex will probably drop something today and someone with 8 Int...well, let's just say they skip the puzzles page in the newspaper...

The argument for INT8 characters consistently failing DC10 passive checks has a hole. If I was playing an INT8 character in your game, me and my character would quickly realise that while we consistently fail at certain mental tasks if we approach them casually, our odds are only 11/20 less than the average member of the population if we actually try. (As in, roll instead of taking passive) Especially since the amount of time it takes to recall information isn't in the rules.

AvatarVecna

2018-03-24, 05:46 AM

I mentioned this the last time one of these threads came up, but a lot of it boils down to four points:

1) Int is a tertiary save at best, and every save has effects/monsters targeting it that absolutely positively don't wanna get hit by, so even the nastiness of the Intellect Devourer doesn't make up for the fact that it's one of only six monsters in the MM that call for Int saves at all - and most of the rest are just monsters who can cast Phantasmal Force (which is one of three spells that calls for an Int save).

2) Anybody can attempt Int skill checks regardless of training. DCs and bonuses are much lower due to bounded accuracy. Both of those things combined means that having a party of 5 people with +0 in all Int skills will have a 98.15% chance of somebody making the DC 10 checks, an 83.19% chance of somebody making the DC 15 checks, and a 22.62% chance of somebody making the DC 20 checks. Sure, checks beyond 20 are beyond that party, but by the time checks like that become a lot more common, divination spells and in-universe networking via Cha skills are better for information gathering than reading a ****ing book once in a while. This matters a lot more in games where DMs use "passive knowledge skills" (10+bonus) to figure out what you know, which a) isn't how knowledge skills work, because there's lot of reasons even a stupid idiot who's never picked up a book could still have learned about one weird monster instead of another (soldier training to fight monsters, oral traditions of myths and legends about real-life monsters, etc), and b) the only skills there's absolutely passive checks for are Perception and Investigation which are about direct observation of immediate circumstances, but I guess if your DM ignores both of those points, you should...get trained, because getting a good Int is way harder than getting good skill training.

3) You can build "Int-based" casters in a way that requires absolutely no Int. This is much easier when making an Eldritch Knight that mostly buffs himself, or an Arcane Trickster that uses magic more for the utility. Sure, they're worse than they could be for not having those options, but they'll still do fine. It's a bit harder for Wizards to get by with Int 8 (particularly at lvl 1 when they'll have cantrips they can't attack with, no prepared spells, and only able to cast ritual spells as rituals), but once you've got a few levels under your belt, you can have your Int 8 Wizard focus on buffing, utility, and BFC for the majority of his career and will still be fantastic because he's a mother****ing wizard; sure BFC with saves will tend to be less successful, but the big area ones will mean hitting a lot of weaker enemies, so just by RNG a lot of them will get affected.

4) The final nail in the coffin: if you're not using Int for saves (point 1), skills (point 2), or attack rolls/save DCs (point 3), you're not using it for anything. Str lets you move quickly in heavy armor and increases your carrying capacity (which actually matters if your DM uses the encumbrance rules). Dex increases most people's AC and initiative (both of which matter to absolutely everybody), fuels one of the big three saves, and is almost always going to be tied to thieves tools (acknowledged by WotC as the most important tool proficiency in their "UA: Skill Feats" piece). Con is one of the big three saves, ties into Concentration saves, affects endurance checks and "holding your breath" type stuff, and fuels your Hit Points. Wis affects Perception (considered hands down the most important skill in the game) and is one of the big three saves. Cha is the main basis for every "social interaction" mechanic, which you might recognize as one of the three pillars upon which the game is based. And Int has...nothing. You don't get more skill proficiencies. You don't get extra languages or tool proficiencies for being smart. You don't get an increase to basic mechanics everybody has by default. You just get slight bonuses to the least called-for save, some of the least called-for skills, and attacks/DCs if you're a wizard.

Honestly, point 3 isn't a giant one; just because you could build a Wizard with Int 8 that didn't totally suck doesn't mean you will, because you won't. Ever. Almost universally cutting off access to spells that require attack rolls and Save DCs puts big limitations on your spell selection that you don't wanna deal with, so being theoretically capable of getting by without it doesn't mean you will. Points 1, 2, and 4 would still need to be addressed, though, and here are my ideas for that

1) Take all the illusion spells that offer an Investigation check to resist, and either change that to an Int save, or make an Int save an alternate option. Yes, this makes Int saves about as common as Str and Cha saves. Please, try to contain your shock.

2) Put some rules in place for your game about getting information on monsters via knowledge checks, as more than just a pass/fail. IMO, base DC to know anything about the monster should be {CR+5} (or CR for Legendary monsters), getting more information for every couple points beyond that base DC. For most of your career, that makes Point 2 up there still relevant (in that somebody rolling a nat 20 can still get a good deal of info on lower CR monsters), but means that they get only some info rather than a good deal of info.

3) PCs gain additional tool and language proficiencies equal to the Int mod (collectively). So an Int 16 wizard could have three additional languages, or one language and two tools, or whatever. This gives Intelligence a way to significantly assist characters in the exploration and social pillars.

Those three things make would make Intelligence far more useful for all characters.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-24, 05:52 AM

If I was playing an INT8 character in your game, me and my character would quickly realise that while we consistently fail at certain mental tasks if we approach them casually, our odds are only 11/20 less than the average member of the population if we actually try. (As in, roll instead of taking passive)

That's not what the active/passive distinction means. It's a practical procedural choice. If a DM chooses method + DC based on what will make any given skill challenge pass or fail and/or drawing fluff conclusions based on those outcomes, they're misusing the system.

JellyPooga

2018-03-24, 06:35 AM

The argument for INT8 characters consistently failing DC10 passive checks has a hole. If I was playing an INT8 character in your game, me and my character would quickly realise that while we consistently fail at certain mental tasks if we approach them casually, our odds are only 11/20 less than the average member of the population if we actually try. (As in, roll instead of taking passive) Especially since the amount of time it takes to recall information isn't in the rules.

Players don't get to choose whether they use Passive or Roll. Passive checks represent repeated or long-term use, or they're used when the GM is making a "secret roll", or they're used for convenience when rolling would take too long (e.g. when checking the Perceptions of every member of a twenty strong Elven Patrol). As a Player you can always ask to roll for an ability check, but the GM can always say "no".

The Jack

2018-03-24, 06:38 AM

I think if you're going to be a punitive DM, you could at least be a little smarter with the DC. Everything "easy" is not "10". But then wow, wouldn't you be a bastard when you think something's "11".

1) Take all the illusion spells that offer an Investigation check to resist, and either change that to an Int save, or make an Int save an alternate option. Yes, this makes Int saves about as common as Str and Cha saves. Please, try to contain your shock.

2) Put some rules in place for your game about getting information on monsters via knowledge checks, as more than just a pass/fail. IMO, base DC to know anything about the monster should be {CR+5} (or CR for Legendary monsters), getting more information for every couple points beyond that base DC. For most of your career, that makes Point 2 up there still relevant (in that somebody rolling a nat 20 can still get a good deal of info on lower CR monsters), but means that they get only some info rather than a good deal of info.

3) PCs gain additional tool and language proficiencies equal to the Int mod (collectively). So an Int 16 wizard could have three additional languages, or one language and two tools, or whatever. This gives Intelligence a way to significantly assist characters in the exploration and social pillars.

Those three things make would make Intelligence far more useful for all characters.

I really like these points with some modifications. Either/or would be a lot nicer for the illusion investigation check/intellegence save. I don't think CR would really dictate how hard it is to know stuff. Due to how legends work an Efreeti would be a far more famous creature than an Azer or fire memphit, whilst people would know far more about an ancient red dragon than they would know of a spectator. Some creatures are also just a lot more simple (a fire newt, it's immune to fire) than others (who knows what purpose that flump has?)

I actually really dislike that barbarians are still illiterate in this edition, It's a vestige from an earlier time that spoils a lot of cool character concepts I have (Yamabushi, gentleman bodybuilder...) I think Illiteracy should be more a function of int modifier and background.

JellyPooga

2018-03-24, 07:16 AM

I think if you're going to be a punitive DM, you could at least be a little smarter with the DC. Everything "easy" is not "10". But then wow, wouldn't you be a bastard when you think something's "11".

True, not all DC's must be a factor of 5, but it's an easy metric to utilise and it's the one the DMG uses. Most DC's that aren't tied to an NPC's stats are expressed that way, for ease's sake. When it comes to assessing the assumed ability of a character, that DC:10 is a useful "goal post" for that assessment. You don't get an A in an exam for being 5% under the required benchmark for an A, even if you know a whole heap of stuff that wasn't even in the exam. So it is with DC's, especially where it pertains to passive checks; you're typically going to use passive checks for long term or repeated tasks, the kind of tasks that fine-grained DC's (i.e. not a factor or 5) aren't really that appropriate for; why bother fine-tuning something that is a representation of "average effort" in the first place?

I really like these points with some modifications. Either/or would be a lot nicer for the illusion investigation check/intellegence save. I don't think CR would really dictate how hard it is to know stuff. Due to how legends work an Efreeti would be a far more famous creature than an Azer or fire memphit, whilst people would know far more about an ancient red dragon than they would know of a spectator. Some creatures are also just a lot more simple (a fire newt, it's immune to fire) than others (who knows what purpose that flump has?)

Misinformation is as important as information when it comes to identifying creatures and their vulnerabilities or strengths. Yes, everyone might know what a Red Dragon is on sight and that they breathe fire...or do they? A Salamander (the Elemental) might be a "dragon" to a simple peasant; it's big, it's sort of lizardy, it's all fiery and, and, it's scary! Likewise, a Red Dragon flies over a town in the middle of the night, burning buildings as it goes; plenty of witnesses, but one guy says it's a dragon, another thinks himself smart and says it was a Wyvern, someone else swears it must have been a Chimera ("I saw it's snake-tail!"), another thinks it's a Demon and so on and so forth. The problem with "knowledge", especially as it pertains to legendary creatures, is that they're...well, legends. Everyone thinks they know the legend best, but rarely do two people agree on every detail. The more famous a legend is, the more diverse the misinformation about it will be. Identifying by CR is a reasonable metric; higher CR might mean more powerful and thus more famous, but differentiating fact from fiction gets in the way, making the task harder.

I actually really dislike that barbarians are still illiterate in this edition, It's a vestige from an earlier time that spoils a lot of cool character concepts I have (Yamabushi, gentleman bodybuilder...) I think Illiteracy should be more a function of int modifier and background.

Err...I might be missing something, but Barbarians are no more illiterate than Wizards in 5ed.

The Jack

2018-03-24, 07:55 AM

Err...I might be missing something, but Barbarians are no more illiterate than Wizards in 5ed.

You are correct, barbarians have nothing to say they're illiterate in the PHB, must've been the influence of discussing the matter with friends. I still believe illiteracy might be an interesting RP measure for folks of low int/poor backgrounds.

As for everyone getting everything wrong about dragons... there's a mote of truth to it, but you're still trying to trash below average intelligence far more than it needs doing. In DnD, Dragons are more than just legends, they're venerable additions to geography and history. One could settle in the vicinity and it'd be known to generations. People could say "a dragon lives on that mountain" and they could approach that mountain, and watch the dragon in flight like some people like to watch birds. Most likely, someone's got a depiction of such a creature somewhere. Some idiot going "lol wyvern" or "lol chimera" isn't very likely to happen, especially given group psychology.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-24, 08:03 AM

It isn't. An 8 IN character is still good at what he does best. He's not ignorant of everything. A warrior is trained to fight. He will know how. He will know about combat tactics. He knows enough to suggest to the party to focus fire or spread out and not be in fireball formation. A diplomat knows what words to say and what words not to say. He can come up with an inspiring speech. He can deal with politics and bureaucracy. Even from a game mechanics standpoint having an 8 IN doesn't mean the character is not proficient in a particular knowledge skill for a net positive plus to the roll. A 1st level 8 IN character proficient in Knowledge Religion is just as likely to succeed on a roll as a non-proficient smarter 12 IN character in Knowledge Religion.

These are all good points.

In my limited experience, DM"s sometimes have Investigation instead of Perception to detect traps without triggering them, and the like, which greatly increases INT based rolls.

Yeah, and I could see a Rogue or other dedicated scout more heavily weighting Int. Alternately, Perception is used to detect hidden creatures, so you have to decide which one your scouting character is more worried about. It might be that the thing to do is to take positive Wis and proficiency in Investigation, or the other way around.

3) PCs gain additional tool and language proficiencies equal to the Int mod (collectively). So an Int 16 wizard could have three additional languages, or one language and two tools, or whatever. This gives Intelligence a way to significantly assist characters in the exploration and social pillars.

This is my preferred boost to Int, though I'm also fine with some level of Int/Wis/Cha transparency. If someone wanted to be an Int-based Monk rather than Wis-based, I'd be fine with that as a DM. Likewise, if someone wanted to use Int instead of Cha to determine casting and abilities for a Lore Bard, I'd encourage that as well. I think I'd order them like Cha>Wis>Int, and if someone wanted to move down the ladder (Cha-based casting to Wis-based) I'd probably allow it with some attention to the sorts of SAD stacking that's possible with Sorcadins or Bardlocks.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-24, 08:06 AM

why bother fine-tuning something that is a representation of "average effort" in the first place?

To avoid arbitrary threshold effects? Because "effort" does not figure in the system to begin with?

Do you think it's fine that +4 is no better than +0 for passive checks at that level of granularity?

JellyPooga

2018-03-24, 08:10 AM

As for everyone getting everything wrong about dragons... there's a mote of truth to it, but you're still trying to trash below average intelligence far more than it needs doing. In DnD, Dragons are more than just legends, they're venerable additions to geography and history. One could settle in the vicinity and it'd be known to generations. People could say "a dragon lives on that mountain" and they could approach that mountain, and watch the dragon in flight like some people like to watch birds. Most likely, someone's got a depiction of such a creature somewhere. Some idiot going "lol wyvern" or "lol chimera" isn't very likely to happen, especially given group psychology.

This is getting into the specifics of a setting at this point. One setting might have dragons in every city, a benevolent or iron-handed ruling class over the ant-like humanoid population (Know About Dragons DC:5), while another may have dragons be all but extinct, their very existence shrouded in mystery (Know About Dragons DC:20). The point about low Int that I'm trying to reinforce is that whatever you call "Easy" knowledge, someone that dumped Int won't necessarily know. If most (not all) people know all about dragons in your setting (Know About Dragons DC:10), a character that dumped Int doesn't. Or at least you can assume as much without some exception (e.g. "I'm a Draconic Sorcerer, so of course I know something about dragons despite my 8 Int") and as such, can happily feed that player misinformation regarding them.

Tanarii

2018-03-24, 09:32 AM

That's not the question.

The question is "Does *anyone* in the party know the relevant information?"

You're deliberately changing the question just to screw over anyone with a good stat.
No I'm not. I'm changing the check to reflect a different question being resolved.

If the question is "does anyone know the relevant information" that's a One Success to Rule Them All check. And you can skip right past those, unless it's a DC 20 check you generally don't need to waste table time roll them. Because the odds of the entire party failing are tiny. It's not worth even gating the information behind a check in the first place.

JellyPooga

2018-03-24, 09:34 AM

To avoid arbitrary threshold effects? Because "effort" does not figure in the system to begin with?

"Effort" is one of the things that rolling the dice represents, among other things. Passive scores represent an average of multiple rolls of the dice and thus "average effort" of a lengrhy or repeated task. As for arbitrary thresholds, it can be argued that any DC is arbitrary, whether it's a multiple of 5 or otherwise. At least using factors of 5 gives a baseline expectation of what is or isn't appropriate.

Do you think it's fine that +4 is no better than +0 for passive checks at that level of granularity?

Yes I do. In a moderately sized town of 10,000 people, you can expect roughly 50 people to have an 18 in a given ability score, leaving aside racial modifiers. That's not a huge number but it's by no means a unique trait. Having a passive score of 15 in any ability or skill is impressive; you can routinely do things that only a select few individuals (Ability Score 20) can do without training or the best (Ability Score 16) of those trained (i.e. Proficient) can do as easily. Crossing that DC:15 threshold routinely is a significant milestone that delineates the professional and exceptional from the untrained and mundane.

ZorroGames

2018-03-24, 10:13 AM

Well, since it has come up - dumping any stat has some risk.

I usually dump CH as often or more often than IN because of my character selection and some optimization for Mountain Dwarf characters. And I only boost it when it is a key part of the class (Paladin, Warlock, Sorcerer, “party face” which I never do.)

Add, to the horror of many, if dumping means below 10, then I tend to dump DE at least as much with heavy armor characters because I have no problem going last in initiative order. Despite the (cannot remember the iconic character name) jokes from others, hitting 12 out of 13 monster hps might be funny but if I know the Caster/Rogue/Barb, etc., goes first next round I have to trust my team to take it down letting me move on to the next “bad guy” on the field.

But much to the disgust of a local “you must maximize optimization to a useful party member” player many of my characters are capable despite having no stat below 10.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-24, 10:55 AM

No I'm not. I'm changing the check to reflect a different question being resolved.

But the question you're reflecting should itself be depending on the first question.

In order to know what the group knows, you first have to know what the individuals know.

If the question is "does anyone know the relevant information" that's a One Success to Rule Them All check.

Okay. I don't see that as being problematic.

And you can skip right past those, unless it's a DC 20 check you generally don't need to waste table time roll them. Because the odds of the entire party failing are tiny. It's not worth even gating the information behind a check in the first place.

I genuinely have no clue what you're talking about now.

Apparently it's not worth having anyone make the roll, because at least one of them will always know the relevant information. Okay. But then you instead have them make a group check to see if anyone knows the relevant information. What.

Could you maybe give an example of how this would work in practise? Because either I'm misunderstanding what you mean or else you have a very strange way of doing knowledge checks. :smalltongue:

Tanarii

2018-03-24, 11:32 AM

You make a group check when the information may be right or wrong, and they are working as a group to come to the right answer.

In other words, it works just like any other group check. Which is to say, when the successes and failures of each member of the group contribute to the overall success of failure of the party.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-24, 11:42 AM

You make a group check when the information may be right or wrong, and they are working as a group to come to the right answer.

Is this not something they do in-character?

In other words, it works just like any other group check.

That's the thing - you're the only person I've ever seen talk about group checks. It's not a concept I'd ever heard of before - either in my years playing D&D or online (up until now).

Do you happen to know if this is a common way to play or whether your group is unique?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-24, 12:12 PM

Is this not something they do in-character?

That's the thing - you're the only person I've ever seen talk about group checks. It's not a concept I'd ever heard of before - either in my years playing D&D or online (up until now).

Do you happen to know if this is a common way to play or whether your group is unique?

PHB: p. 175:

GROUP CHECKS

When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. ... 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. .. Group checks don't come up very often, and they're most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group.

Whit

2018-03-24, 12:18 PM

Dump stat because no one role plays an 8 intelligence character. If 10 is average for a person in the fantasy world then 8 is a big jump down the smart chain.
So no matter if yiu have high str dex con wis charisma your not smart. So try roll playing an 8 intelligence 17 charisma character. Yiu may be suave but can’t hold an intelligent conversation off topic.

1. Sorcerer “ I am the great and powerful Tricia and hear that you’ve been making jokes about me.”

Wizard. “ me? No that’s the barbarian down the street, Conan I think? Yeah , I didn’t want to say anything but he said he can eat your fireballs and **** out lightning back at you!”

Sorcerer “ oh. He did? Thanks for your help Wizard. I’ll use ice storm instead but I’ll cast minor globe of invulnerability to protect me from the lighting bolts just in case.

2. Paladin “ask not what your King can do for you, but what you can do for your King!”

The crowd cheer in zeal at the paladins speech

Wizard: but paladin, with taxes at 36% and unemployment at 15% how much more will the people need to pay?

Paladin : “don’t be silly Wizard the answer is simple. If you make 1 gp a day and yiu do the math it comes out to....hey look a dragon up in the sky! Paladin exits.

2. Justin the Bard finished his song “ just as you love.” The tavern maidens swoon. “ now excuse me ladies, I have a performance with the King

Wizard “. Excuse me Bard, I just so happen to have found a magical scroll with an ancient song that will make you famous forever in exchange for that magic wand you have.

Bard. Really? That’s fantastic. I’ll do it. What is the title of the song?
Wizard “Ottos Irresistible dance. The king will love it”.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-03-24, 12:34 PM

Another thing about INT checks is that they're not "have I ever learned this before" but "can I remember this now, under some kind of pressure (time or otherwise)."

I've known lots of "low-INT" people who had tremendous reserves of knowledge, knowledge gained through experience. They may not know what it's called, or be able to explain why it's that way, but they can predict and plan expertly if given time.

I've known lots of "high-INT" people who know very little (because they're lazy) but can piece together facts that they do learn quite quickly.

If a party or a character never learned something, it's DC: No. If it's something that 90% of people know (there are 3 moons on this world) or the person has sufficient low-pressure time to think about it, they succeed--DC: Yup.

It's only for things done under pressure that you should be setting a numerical DC for at all even a passive check. And most of those are better done as active checks (IMO) because the reduced variability of a passive is unnecessarily punishing--a DC 11 passive check requires a +1 or better to have any chance of success but is only 5% harder to make as an active check than a DC 10 (which a +0 can do fine).

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-24, 12:37 PM

PHB: p. 175:

Interesting. I don't think anyone in my group has ever noticed that rule. :smalltongue:

The example they give makes a bit more sense, at least.

ZorroGames

2018-03-24, 01:05 PM

PHB: p. 175:

Yeah, group checks are a way of life for some games.

Some use majority rules, some estimated median, some estimated mean, and one whatever the spirit seizes her.

2D8HP

2018-03-24, 01:12 PM

Dump stat because no one role plays an 8 intelligence character. If 10 is average for a person in the fantasy world then 8 is a big jump down the smart chain....

No one?

"A character with a high Intelligence might be highly inquisitive and studious, while a character with low Intelligence might speak simply or easily forget details"
-page 14, PHB

"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason"
-page 177, PHB

I can easily tell that I'm way more forgetful, and it's much harder for me to now learn new things (like new RPG rules), than in my youth, so in D&D terms less INT.

If the essence of "role-playing" is making in-character decisions (I may have gotten that phrase from @Tanari), then except with out-of-character aids (note taking, more time to ponder things than the PC has in-character, consulting with others, et cetera), you can't role-play smarter than you are (I'm much more dubious of all 16-20 INT PC's being played as that smart)!

We may not be the majority, but D&D players of below average intelligence exist, I'M LIVING PROOF!

BTW, the rest of your post, was...

...So no matter if yiu have high str dex con wis charisma your not smart. So try roll playing an 8 intelligence 17 charisma character. Yiu may be suave but can’t hold an intelligent conversation off topic.

1. Sorcerer “ I am the great and powerful Tricia and hear that you’ve been making jokes about me.”

Wizard. “ me? No that’s the barbarian down the street, Conan I think? Yeah , I didn’t want to say anything but he said he can eat your fireballs and **** out lightning back at you!”

Sorcerer “ oh. He did? Thanks for your help Wizard. I’ll use ice storm instead but I’ll cast minor globe of invulnerability to protect me from the lighting bolts just in case.

2. Paladin “ask not what your King can do for you, but what you can do for your King!”

The crowd cheer in zeal at the paladins speech

Wizard: but paladin, with taxes at 36% and unemployment at 15% how much more will the people need to pay?

Paladin : “don’t be silly Wizard the answer is simple. If you make 1 gp a day and yiu do the math it comes out to....hey look a dragon up in the sky! Paladin exits.

2. Justin the Bard finished his song “ just as you love.” The tavern maidens swoon. “ now excuse me ladies, I have a performance with the King

Wizard “. Excuse me Bard, I just so happen to have found a magical scroll with an ancient song that will make you famous forever in exchange for that magic wand you have.

Bard. Really? That’s fantastic. I’ll do it. What is the title of the song?
Wizard “Ottos Irresistible dance. The king will love it”.

.....AWESOME!

Xihirli

2018-03-24, 01:35 PM

That sounds a lot more like Charisma (Deception) than intelligence, actually.

And since Otto's is a bard spell, I assume the bard will know what it does.

My DM makes intelligence very important. Checks with it are almost as common as Wisdom (Perception) and my fighter was bemoaning her 12 INT last session because mind flayers.

Pex

2018-03-24, 03:02 PM

Nifft

2018-03-24, 03:05 PM

Tee hee

In my Paladin game that's my excuse for not taking notes. If I the player forget something I have the 8 IN character excuse. If it's something really important for my character then I'll take notes. My character is taking extra special care to remember that one thing. Once in a while I the player goof on something unintentionally, nothing serious or harmful. I'll joke about the 8 IN.

This is what optimizing your PC for real-life looks like.

Tanarii

2018-03-24, 08:07 PM

If the essence of "role-playing" is making in-character decisions (I may have gotten that phrase from @Tanari), then except with out-of-character aids (note taking, more time to ponder things than the PC has in-character, consulting with others, et cetera), you can't role-play smarter than you are (I'm much more dubious of all 16-20 INT PC's being played as that smart)!

We may not be the majority, but D&D players of below average intelligence exist, I'M LIVING PROOF!
I say that at the broadest level, role-playing is making decisions for your character. A subset I particularly enjoy is making in-character decisions for my character. ;) I don't think I'm alone in that.

In my case, I now mostly do it by figuring out where my character's personality and motivations are, then filtering my decisions through though those / letting those inform my decisions, when appropriate. I used to often subconciously it, but since 5e I now explicitly and intentionally do it.

I don't usually "roleplay" ability acores, including mental ones, nor do I expect my players to. The utcomes and consequences of succeeding or failing on checks, or knowing the chances of succeeding or failing at various DCs based on them, already affects decision making based on them.

Also I agree RPG players (including me at times) are often enamoured of their own Intelligence. We may even overestimate it a little bit because of that. :)

JellyPooga

2018-03-25, 02:44 AM

I don't usually "roleplay" ability acores, including mental ones, nor do I expect my players to.

I'm not normally one to say "you're having badwrongfun", but I said it upthread somewhere and I'll say it again; if you're not playing your character, including their stats, then you might be playing the wrong game.

A character in an RPG isn't just a personality, they have stats for a reason and that reason is more than just to influence your decisions based on the likelihood of success/failure. If you're playing a low Int/Wis/Cha Barbarian as eloquent, insightful and cunning, then there's a necessary disconnect between the character you want to play and the character you are playing.

Arguably, yes, you can assume a certain level of abstraction; have to, in fact, inasmuch as you can translate your own (player) eloquence/cunning/etc. into something less or more from an in-character perspective, but your characters stats are there to do more than inform your decisions in the abstract.

A Str 8 Wizard can "have a go", for example, at passing a DC:15 Str check; he's got a 25% chance by the dice, but the question of whether he should even bother trying is an important one. He knows he's not strong, so outside of a critical situation he won't try and instead find an alternative solution (probably a magical one in this circumstance, 'cos, you know, Wizard). That's not to say you couldn't, for instance, play said Wizard as someone that believes himself physically stronger than he actually is; playing a character with such a delusion is your prerogative. The dice will, on average, back your character "flaw". The danger lies in pure chance "proving" your character sheet wrong; the Str 8 Wizard that consistently rolls 20's on Str checks that he frequently makes isn't playing a weak Wizard, but a strong one; you're stats are failing to represent the character you're playing. Yes, there's fun to be had watching/playing the "puny" Wizard busting down doors and hurling boulders bigger than him, but there is a disconnect there between the character on the sheet and the one on the table. You have failed, as a player, to play the role and in a game about roleplaying, that's failing to play the game.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-25, 04:02 AM

I don't usually "roleplay" ability acores, including mental ones, nor do I expect my players to.

That seems really strange. I get that personality is important, but those scores are supposed to be part of your character as well.

I appreciate that you can't play scores perfectly, but surely there should still be some difference between characters with high Int vs ones with low Int? Same goes for Wisdom and Charisma.

It also makes it weird when you use stuff like Polymorph - which changes your mental stats. If you're basically ignoring your mental stats, do you just play a T-Rex with identical intelligence to the character who turned into it?

A Str 8 Wizard can "have a go", for example, at passing a DC:15 Str check; he's got a 25% chance by the dice, but the question of whether he should even bother trying is an important one. He knows he's not strong, so outside of a critical situation he won't try and instead find an alternative solution (probably a magical one in this circumstance, 'cos, you know, Wizard). That's not to say you couldn't, for instance, play said Wizard as someone that believes himself physically stronger than he actually is; playing a character with such a delusion is your prerogative.

You've now made me want to play a weak wizard who thinks he's really strong. :smallbiggrin:

Tanarii

2018-03-25, 05:59 AM

I'm not normally one to say "you're having badwrongfun", but I said it upthread somewhere and I'll say it again; if you're not playing your character, including their stats, then you might be playing the wrong game.

That seems really strange. I get that personality is important, but those scores are supposed to be part of your character as well.
You guys both chopped out the relevant portion of my comment: any time an ability score matters as to if you can do something or not, you're already making a check. If it doesn't matter in resolving something, you aren't.

So it already affects roleplaying, as in the player making decisions for their character, insofar as they make their decisions taking into account how an ability score will affect anything where it comes in to play. They don't need to make any other special accommodations for it.

In fact, if they do, they're not actually roleplaying based on their ability score. They're making up extra personality traits they've added that aren't a required part of the ability score. If they were a required part of the ability score, the DM would have already called for a check, so clearly they aren't.

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-25, 06:14 AM

You guys both chopped out the relevant portion of my comment: any time an ability score matters as to if you can do something or not, you're already making a check. If it doesn't matter in resolving something, you aren't.

But it's not just about the check - it's about what words you use, how you phrase things etc..

It's highly unlikely that a person with 18 charisma would talk to people the same way as a person with 8 charisma.

So it already affects roleplaying, as in the player making decisions for their character, insofar as they make their decisions taking into account how an ability score will affect anything where it comes in to play. They don't need to make any other special accommodations for it.

This seems like a really backwards way to go about it.

In fact, if they do, they're not actually roleplaying based on their ability score. They're making up extra personality traits they've added that aren't a required part of the ability score. If they were a required part of the ability score, the DM would have already called for a check, so clearly they aren't.

Okay, I think we'll have to just agree to disagree, because at this point your games aren't even on the same plane of existence as any that I've ever seen or experienced.

Morty

2018-03-25, 06:52 AM

The calls for role-playing your ability scores really sounds like making them out to be a bigger deal than they really are, and an attempt to patch up holes in the rules. Yes, my attribute scores inform my character. So does their class, background, skills, feats, spells and even equipment. Attributes are just six numbers on a character sheet that already has plenty. I don't really see why they should be given more importance than everything else.

If I'm playing a barbarian with 18 strength, the attribute score when combined with her class abilities means she is big, strong and physically powerful. But if she doesn't happen to take any intelligence-based skills, then whether her intelligence score is 8, 10 or 12 doesn't matter that much to anything she does. Any contribution she has to intelligence-based checks is going to be based on luck, with the score skewing it a little this way or the other. If she does happen to have an intelligence-based skill, then she probably won't have an 8 in intelligence, but a 12 is also unlikely, since it only affects that one skill, where strength, dexterity and constitution affect how she does her primary job (breaking things).

I think what it comes down to is that ability scores just aren't that important. Intelligence is just less important than others, because 5e removes the universal benefits it provided in 3e, leaving it only useful to spell-casting and a few skills. Charisma is in a similar boat, when it comes down to it.

The Jack

2018-03-25, 08:38 AM

As a player who likes the social aspect of RPGs (ok, I like playing most aspects of DnD, even if I wish for a few changes) (also, I came to DnD after being a very heavy player of Vampire, where social scenes and cunning plans that don't risk your neck are the best thing ever) there's a noticable difference between charisma 8 and charisma 12, and your charisma is apparent to every character you see. It's the one stat that is immediately obvious to anyone, with strength a good second.
People are really particular about charisma. They want to hang with the 12+'s and avoid the 8's. If you want to seduce an attractive, happily married woman with a 10, you best know a spell, and that'll upset people. With a 16? you can entertain the table with your antics. Appearance and demeanor are factored into so many elements; The theif'd prefer to steal from the one who looks like a victim, the attractive person might get lower prices and a better room at the inn, or get a nicer criminal sentencing. The cool character might get invited to cool things, or get a better stake in the loot.

Intellegence; that's not something you wear on your sleeve. Unless you're talking with academics or expressing your political opinion, nobody's going to notice you're thick as **** unless you're deliberately tested. There's very little fluff reason to have intellegence should one member of your party have it and all the knowledges. A 9 or 8 just ain't noticeable, it'd be far easier to see a low wis in someone.
Also I'd if you absolutely needed to limit plans to passive ability, you'd consider most adventurer classes to be proficient in tactics and would add their proficiency modifiers. Thus the lowest one could start with would be 11, and the highest would be 21 not including magic items or expertise.

Tanarii

2018-03-25, 10:09 AM

But it's not just about the check - it's about what words you use, how you phrase things etc..

It's highly unlikely that a person with 18 charisma would talk to people the same way as a person with 8 charisma.You're talking about acting, trying to act in reality like the character does in game. That's not a required way to play the game. It's a form of roleplaying, but by no means a common one. Far more common is describing what you do or say, not 'doing' what you do or say. (And for some people, it's even third person, describing what your character does or says.) Most common for people who really want to do what you're talking about, they do things in reverse: make the check first, then 'do' based on the result. Because they need to know how well a their character does before they can decide exactly what their character says or does in universe, word for word or action for action or even thought for thought.

Also I left out of my previous post: automatic resolution by the DM based on your ability scores also counts as "making a check", if they took your ability score into account when deciding what happens.

Wryte

2018-03-25, 12:45 PM

Bottom line, Int has absolutely an absolutely terrible ratio of applications to frequency, and excluding being a spellcasting ability, most of those applications fall under the banner of "nice to have" rather than "crucial to the character."

If you're not an Int spellcaster, Int has precisely three applications:

1: Saving Throws: Int saves are one of the rarest, if not the rarest, saves in the game. Unless you happen to know you're going to be spending a fair bit of time contending with illithids in this campaign, Int saves are pretty low on the priority list.

2: Skill Checks: Int applies to basically two skills: Investigation, and Knowledge. Investigation can often be worked around either with Perception, which has wider applications, or by trying to physically interact with the object in the case of illusions. Knowledge checks by themselves are rarely anything to write home about; at best, they enable some other skill to be the hero.

3: Training Time: XGtE introduced new rules for training in characters' downtime between adventures, and let Int influence how long such training takes. However, these rules are still relatively new, which means that a lot of tables aren't even aware of them, and they require that the campaign have downtime for the characters to train in the first place, which not every (or even, I imagine, most) campaign will have.

Int's mechanical applications are just too narrow and come up too infrequently compared to any other attribute. If Int isn't your spellcasting stat, it just doesn't offer very good returns on the investment; so unless you rolled for stats and got high across the board, there are just about always better places for you to put your precious attribute points.

Luccan

2018-03-25, 01:46 PM

I have to agree with the people saying not role-playing your ability scores at all seems weird. I think I get why: if you dump strength, the only time that comes up is during strength tasks. There is a mechanical effect whenever having a low ability score would be relevant. Compared to low-Int, which should effect you all the time (if it is to be believed lower stats mean something, at least), but only has a mechanical effect during Knowledge checks, saves, or Investigation checks. And of course, acting on a low mental stat can feel limiting for some people. I think this can be solved with some OOC leeway, however. Letting the group actually plan, not just as characters but as players, could actually assist roleplay. Particularly if you have a low-Int character and a high-Int character. The players can plan something out and the low-Int character's player might have a good idea, that in universe can be introduced by the high-Int character that should have thought of it.

Also, having a low-Int shouldn't mean your character is bad at their job. Barring rolling extremely poorly, I can't imagine non-orc characters usually have an Int lower than 8. That wouldn't have a huge impact mechanically (compared to a 10), so it shouldn't have a huge impact in role-play.

2D8HP

2018-03-25, 01:53 PM

......Int's mechanical applications are just too narrow and come up too infrequently compared to any other attribute. If Int isn't your spellcasting stat, it just doesn't offer very good returns on the investment; so unless you rolled for stats and got high across the board, there are just about always better places for you to put your precious attribute points.

The last time I rolled stats (in order), I got an 18 INT, looked at the 5e rules for Wizard, said "No thanks" (too much for me to keep track of) and made the PC a High Elf Rogue with the Firebolt Cantrip, which made another player get on my case 'cause "sub-optimal", which left a bad taste, and I never rolled stats for a 5e PC again.

FreddyNoNose

2018-03-25, 01:58 PM

I wonder if Int as a dump stat, for some players, is because of this whole player agency thing. Doesn't matter what my Int is the GM can't punish me for it. Whereas con/dex/str has useful benefits for combat.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-25, 02:03 PM

I'm fine with the INT 8 sly veteran fighter being just as good at coming up with tactical plans as the INT 18 erudite spell-sharp wizard.

The Jack

2018-03-25, 02:23 PM

I have to agree with the people saying not role-playing your ability scores at all seems weird.

I like problem solving, planning, thinking of ways that my character could gain the most and risk the least. Every now and then playing someone with a head of muscle/air can be good, but for the most part I want to lead the troops, intellegently. But I don't want to always play a wizard, and I don't want to score weak fighter because I wanted to play a strategic one. I don't think an ability score of 8 should mean all my plans have to be crap. 6? Sure. But If I'm playing someone with 8, (or 10 because most average people I know don't make great plans) Good, simple plans and counterplans aught to be viable. I will limit how excellent my plans are but if a DM made my plan stupid because he thought my character was stupid, that'd be upsetting. The enemy having a better strategist? Sure, but denying me planning might as well be denying me the game.

As int, fluf wise, is a big abstraction, I'd like to have some say in what I'm good/bad at fluff wise. Maybe I'll be really bad with numbers, terrible with long term memory,or have stupid views that could be refuted by even common evidence. I'll even volunteer illiteracy if I think it'd suit the character. But don't take away my tactics, that's my fun even when I limit myself. Otherwise I'm very happy to play any low or high stat.

FreddyNoNose

2018-03-25, 02:49 PM

I like problem solving, planning, thinking of ways that my character could gain the most and risk the least. Every now and then playing someone with a head of muscle/air can be good, but for the most part I want to lead the troops, intellegently. But I don't want to always play a wizard, and I don't want to score weak fighter because I wanted to play a strategic one. I don't think an ability score of 8 should mean all my plans have to be crap. 6? Sure. But If I'm playing someone with 8, (or 10 because most average people I know don't make great plans) Good, simple plans and counterplans aught to be viable. I will limit how excellent my plans are but if a DM made my plan stupid because he thought my character was stupid, that'd be upsetting. The enemy having a better strategist? Sure, but denying me planning might as well be denying me the game.

As int, fluf wise, is a big abstraction, I'd like to have some say in what I'm good/bad at fluff wise. Maybe I'll be really bad with numbers, terrible with long term memory,or have stupid views that could be refuted by even common evidence. I'll even volunteer illiteracy if I think it'd suit the character. But don't take away my tactics, that's my fun even when I limit myself. Otherwise I'm very happy to play any low or high stat.

This is kind of my point. Imagine someone saying that about strength? Oh, 8 strength but I can still get +6 dmg because of "reasons". DON"T STIFLE ME! Oh, 8 dex but I can still dodge like 18 dext because my bad dex is about tap dancing poorly....

Dr. Cliché

2018-03-25, 03:04 PM

FreddyNoNose

2018-03-25, 03:13 PM

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-25, 03:26 PM

Tanarii

2018-03-25, 04:28 PM

It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it - you want to be smart but you don't want to actually pay for the privilege by investing points into intelligence.
Int "measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." And if there is a question of resolution on those things, the DM should be requesting a ability check of some kind, or judging that the Int-related task automatically succeeds or fails.

And yes, there's room for DM/Player disagreement on all this. Especially as regards player agency. For example, if a DM requests a check for the ability to reason out a sound tactical plan, some people will scream about intruding on player agency. Others will get upset about using Int checks to replace puzzle solving. Others dislike checks to assist player/PC recall of details that happened in prior sessions that they can't remember.

It's also important to remember the possibility for automatic success if there's no penalty for failure and the result is possible. Which is in and of itself potentially a non-check judgment call on the Intelligence of a character on the part of a player or DM. I'm not discounting the possibility that a player or DM may judge their character can't possibly succeed at an Int task, involving the things that Int represents. Just saying that the resolution system already accounts for these things, if used right. If you want to say that can preempted by "roleplaying" it right, go for it. I just don't feel it's required, I think all that is embedded in proper application of the resolution system.

If I make a DEX 8 elven wizard, can I declare that she has stately, fluid movements, however unsuited she is to swinging from chandeliers or dodging charging bulls, or is that me trying to get out of paying to not be jerky and clumsy?To me that sounds like trying to preempt resolution by declaring what is, instead of what you are trying to do.

So it sounds like a good analogy for trying to preempt declaring what is on an Int related task instead of what you're attempting to do. I like it.

JellyPooga

2018-03-25, 06:15 PM

If I make a DEX 8 elven wizard, can I declare that she has stately, fluid movements, however unsuited she is to swinging from chandeliers or dodging charging bulls, or is that me trying to get out of paying to not be jerky and clumsy?

I'm inclined to go with the latter; Elves are famous for their grace because they get a Dex bonus, not because they necessarily have high Dex. An Elf with Dex 8 is no more graceful or fluid than a Human or Orc with similar Dex. There's a lot of leeway in declaring that your character is slender, fine-featured or stately, but a Dex 8 character is still not going to have a lot of fluidity, regardless of your race. May as well declare your Str 8, Con 8 Half-Orc is built like Mr.Universe despite his low physical stats. It's a description that doesn't match the stats on the character sheet.

If your average Dex 12 Elf is described as graceful and fluid, your below Human average Dex 8 Elf is probably going to be more notable for his (racially unusual) lack of grace, than for having fluid motions.

If I asked you to build a character that was quick of wit with a charming attitude, with a lithe, wiry build and gaunt complexion that speaks of frequent illness or repeated exhaustion, I doubt you'd build me one with Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 8 because those stats don't match the description. If your GM described a monster as looking physically imposing but ponderous, you'd be pretty put out if it turns out that they actually have Dex 20 and high mobility but you'd already taken actions based on the GM's description of it's actions being strong and slow.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-25, 06:58 PM

This is kind of my point. Imagine someone saying that about strength? Oh, 8 strength but I can still get +6 dmg because of "reasons". DON"T STIFLE ME! Oh, 8 dex but I can still dodge like 18 dext because my bad dex is about tap dancing poorly....

+6 damage is a totally mechanical concept. Players having ideas isn't. The penalty for low Int is already expressed in the game's mechanics: you are bad at Int-keyed skills, and you aren't able to multiclass into certain classes. People of modest intelligence have good ideas all the time, and people of enormous intelligence think a bunch of really unbelievably stupid things just as often. This idea that because your character has an Int of 8 they aren't able to reason at all is silly. Nearly every character in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign is kind of a genius in their own way.

If I make a DEX 8 elven wizard, can I declare that she has stately, fluid movements, however unsuited she is to swinging from chandeliers or dodging charging bulls, or is that me trying to get out of paying to not be jerky and clumsy?

I have no problem with this at all. Sure, you can move gracefully and fluidly, but you're still loud and bad at dodging. Stats can by expressed in characters in ways that are more subtle than "me int 8, me dumb" or "I have 8 Dex so I trip over my own feet, like, all the time". Maybe low Dex is graceful and fluid but with spatial awareness, and a high Dex character is constantly knocking over his coffee but catching it before it spills.

If I asked you to build a character that was quick of wit with a charming attitude, with a lithe, wiry build and gaunt complexion that speaks of frequent illness or repeated exhaustion, I doubt you'd build me one with Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 8 because those stats don't match the description.

This seems tautological, because what it seems like you're asking for is a character build that is good at Ability Check: Cha and Ability Check: Dex and is bad at Ability Check: Str and Ability Check: Con. If we tweak that description a little, it might change the way we could think of the character. So our dude is quick with a joke or to turn on the charm, and he's got 10 Cha and 8 Int because he's smarmy, not charming, and his jokes aren't funny.

Pex

2018-03-25, 07:28 PM

I'm not normally one to say "you're having badwrongfun", but I said it upthread somewhere and I'll say it again; if you're not playing your character, including their stats, then you might be playing the wrong game.

A character in an RPG isn't just a personality, they have stats for a reason and that reason is more than just to influence your decisions based on the likelihood of success/failure. If you're playing a low Int/Wis/Cha Barbarian as eloquent, insightful and cunning, then there's a necessary disconnect between the character you want to play and the character you are playing.

Arguably, yes, you can assume a certain level of abstraction; have to, in fact, inasmuch as you can translate your own (player) eloquence/cunning/etc. into something less or more from an in-character perspective, but your characters stats are there to do more than inform your decisions in the abstract.

A Str 8 Wizard can "have a go", for example, at passing a DC:15 Str check; he's got a 25% chance by the dice, but the question of whether he should even bother trying is an important one. He knows he's not strong, so outside of a critical situation he won't try and instead find an alternative solution (probably a magical one in this circumstance, 'cos, you know, Wizard). That's not to say you couldn't, for instance, play said Wizard as someone that believes himself physically stronger than he actually is; playing a character with such a delusion is your prerogative. The dice will, on average, back your character "flaw". The danger lies in pure chance "proving" your character sheet wrong; the Str 8 Wizard that consistently rolls 20's on Str checks that he frequently makes isn't playing a weak Wizard, but a strong one; you're stats are failing to represent the character you're playing. Yes, there's fun to be had watching/playing the "puny" Wizard busting down doors and hurling boulders bigger than him, but there is a disconnect there between the character on the sheet and the one on the table. You have failed, as a player, to play the role and in a game about roleplaying, that's failing to play the game.

Others have argued, in an unrelated matter, that the 8 ST wizard succeeding on strength checks a significant percentage of time anyway is a math flaw of the game itself because of Bounded Accuracy and in particular instances of lack of defined skill DCs (coincidental to my personal rant on that matter). In any event, the game encourages people to try. It's your business as DM if you want to absolutely forbid a character from trying something because he has an 8 in the appropriate ability score, but it's not your place to condemn other DMs who do allow players to try.

It's a common habit, regardless of game system, for players and DMs alike to have only the character with the highest modifier try something. Happened just today in my Pathfinder game and in a recent 5E game. I cringe when that happens. It makes players shut down and not try things when they have a low plus number to something. Instead of playing the game they're playing the numbers, part of the "rollplaying" people complain about. Bounded Accuracy or not DCs don't always have a minimum plus number required to succeed. Not everything is DC 25+.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-25, 07:29 PM

If your average Dex 12 Elf is described as graceful and fluid, your below Human average Dex 8 Elf is probably going to be more notable for his (racially unusual) lack of grace, than for having fluid motions.

To me it seems unnecessarily limiting to make ability scores into broad monolithic packages in that way so that either you have all of it or you have none of it even when there are no mechanical effects involved.

If I want my elf wizard to have a graceful berobed stride and finely controlled lifting of a teacup, while asking for not a single mechanical benefit, apparently I may not have it at DEX 8, so may I have it at 14? 12? 10? If 10, why not 8?

If I want my elf wizard to be nicely soft-spoken and a patient listener, but not at all an inspiring leader or someone who's intense and comfortable seducing or swaying others, may I have that at CHA 14? 12? 10? If 10, why not 8?

If I want my elf wizard to have a peculiarly apt elven saying for every occasion, may I have that at WIS 14? 12? 10? If 10, why not 8?

It seems my new character concept is MAD not for mechanical reasons but because the character traits I envisioned can be called out as being ruled by an ability score even when there's no mechanical connection. I would rather that abilities always have their set mechanical effects but I'm free to explain why and how those abilities are or aren't effective. There could be any number of ways to describe how a particular CHA 8 character isn't good at getting people to accommodate them. With your approach it would have to be all of those reasons at the same time for every character since traits aren't invoked as wanted and needed, instead they all correlate uniformly to the ability score.

If your GM described a monster as looking physically imposing but ponderous, you'd be pretty put out if it turns out that they actually have Dex 20 and high mobility but you'd already taken actions based on the GM's description of it's actions being strong and slow.

I would expect that my DM describes the monster in a way that's consistent with his conception of it. If he first describes it as slow and cumbersome, then says it easily pirouettes around a Fireball, I might possibly ask if initial appearances were deceptive, to confirm I didn't misunderstand something. In any case I would be unlikely to go, "Oh, but you already locked this in as having low DEX." Conversely, if I walk into a pub and my DM describes an expert dart player, I'm not going to go, "Ah, high DEX, there's the trapeze artist we need for our circus." Sometimes a dart player is just a dart player.

skaddix

2018-03-25, 08:10 PM

A bit late but seems simple enough it contributes to nothing...very few saves and it doesn't even get you skill points beyond that even if you drop your intelligence a bit you rarely forced to play as if you had series mental defects.

The Jack

2018-03-25, 08:24 PM

I believe I rollplay a character's intellegence and just try to do the smartest thing I believe that character could think of. For example.

I think the current character has 10 int. But I think this plan'd be good enough for 8.

Rectangular building, doors on one of the ends. We have many soldiers helping the party.
We open the door, there's a necromancer boss, an ogre zombie and a goliath zombie. They're a good distance away.
We don't charge in like the DM hopes, we just shoot them with arrows because that'd give us a free attack round.
The zombies charge, men scatter to surround, shields at front on full defence, pikes behind, archers further behind.
The players disengage to murder the leader since the zombies are likely to be safely dealt with without losses.

That's A: smart and B: doesn't really require much intelligence to do. If you told me "you're stupid so can't do this" then I'd IRL kill you.

FreddyNoNose

2018-03-25, 08:43 PM

Wryte

2018-03-25, 08:57 PM

But the guy saying he 8 int character has some sort of super tactics is BS. It is metagaming. Oh, my player can have ideas don't restrict me. that is what you guys want.

I mean... yes? A big part of the fun of D&D is thinking around the problems you are presented with. If you are mechanically not allowed to be clever because the DM has decided that your character's Int isn't smart enough to think of anything more than "run at bad guy, hit with sword," then you're being locked out of a huge part of what makes the game fun and interesting. That turns Int from a dump stat into the new God stat, because while other skill checks may make a clever plan fail because luck wasn't on your side, not having as much Int as your DM thinks you should have doesn't let you even try your plan.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-25, 09:29 PM

But the guy saying he 8 int character has some sort of super tactics is BS. It is metagaming. Oh, my player can have ideas don't restrict me. that is what you guys want.

I'm a fighter. I'm rough and tumble and don't much hold with book learnin'. I've got no head for figures and can't really cook much; any recipe more complex than putting chicken nuggets in the microwave is impossible. But yeah, you better believe I know how to win a fight.

Even people who aren't geniuses can have specialized knowledge in their particular area of expertise, and that seasoned with a little common sense creates ideas better than what a very smart novice comes up with. 8 Int is very slightly below average. It's not stupid by any means, and every one of those people who becomes an adventurer possesses specialized skills and insight. Fernat and Bernouli are obviously smarter than Kawhi Leonard, but if I need a scheme to defend the pick and roll, I'm going to be asking Leonard, thanks.

And again, 'super tactics' isn't mechanics. Super tactics at your table get a raised eyebrow and a TPK at mine, and what I and my players do likewise won't work at yours.

I mean... yes? A big part of the fun of D&D is thinking around the problems you are presented with. If you are mechanically not allowed to be clever because the DM has decided that your character's Int isn't smart enough to think of anything more than "run at bad guy, hit with sword," then you're being locked out of a huge part of what makes the game fun and interesting. That turns Int from a dump stat into the new God stat, because while other skill checks may make a clever plan fail because luck wasn't on your side, not having as much Int as your DM thinks you should have doesn't let you even try your plan.

Absolutely this. And I'll note that I've never seen a DM who advocates this sort of Int floor enforce the opposite and give characters with high Int advantages in executing their plans. So characters with Int 8 have extraordinary penalties not found anywhere in the rules, while Int 20 characters are still being played by Int 12 players without any sort of help. If you link character intelligence and player intelligence, that link has to work both ways.

Tanarii

2018-03-25, 09:35 PM

But the guy saying he 8 int character has some sort of super tactics is BS. It is metagaming. Oh, my player can have ideas don't restrict me. that is what you guys want.
It's questionable if tactical ability is related to Int in the first place.

If you would never require an Int check for it as a DM, then clearly it isn't in your games.

If you might require Int checks at some times, then it is in your games.

To me, ability scores and ability checks in 5e mostly appear to be about coinciding with player skill. Player deciding what to try do = player skill. Ability check = question of resolution. The latter usually either before the former, in which case it provides information for the player to base decisions on. Or it follows the former, determining the result of attempted actions. So it should never replace or makes player skill completely unnecessary. But at the same time, player skill doesn't make adjudication unnecessary, although it may make something automatically successful or fail.

Of course, I may just see 5e adjudication as coniciding with player skill and roleplaying because of how I view the process of adjudication in the first place. :smallamused:

RSP

2018-03-25, 09:46 PM

Not rollplaying stats slightly bothers me, but not enough to want to call someone else out on it. Likewise, I usually feel it's metagaming to replace The characters mental abilities with the Players.

But it comes down to the table you're at: if you're not using encumbrance rules, that 8 Str isn't a big deal. If you are, then it'll be a factor. Some DMs care about these things, others just want fun.

2D8HP

2018-03-25, 09:49 PM

I quoted a post in this thread, and responded in another thread:
From another thread:

Others have argued, in an unrelated matter, that the 8 ST wizard succeeding on strength checks a significant percentage of time anyway is a math flaw of the game itself because of Bounded Accuracy and in particular instances of lack of defined skill DCs (coincidental to my personal rant on that matter). In any event, the game encourages people to try. It's your business as DM if you want to absolutely forbid a character from trying something because he has an 8 in the appropriate ability score, but it's not your place to condemn other DMs who do allow players to try.

It's a common habit, regardless of game system, for players and DMs alike to have only the character with the highest modifier try something. Happened just today in my Pathfinder game and in a recent 5E game. I cringe when that happens. It makes players shut down and not try things when they have a low plus number to something. Instead of playing the game they're playing the numbers, part of the "rollplaying" people complain about. Bounded Accuracy or not DCs don't always have a minimum plus number required to succeed. Not everything is DC 25+.

All Party Milestone is easier but, if a DM is going through the hassle of individual XP awards, a DM may encourage PC's attempt hard-to-do actions by rewarding XP for those actions, so higher XP for PC's that attempt tasks that have worse odds for that PC (so attempting and/or succeeding a 15 DC action gains higher XP), to encourage attempts for say, a 15 DC task, award XP for high unmodified rolls, so if a 1st level Barbarian with an 8 INT tries to Investigate without proficiency in Investigation, they get XP for a roll of 16, while an 18 INT 5th level Rogue with Expertise in Investigatiion, will not receive as much XP for a roll of 10, despite succeeding at the task (one PC is getting practice learning a skill, the other is doing something they're used to).

Pex

2018-03-25, 11:43 PM

That I think is dumb, to award XP over the result of a die roll. It also penalizes the player with the higher score because he's getting less XP overall. What happens to the player who chose an array without any 8s. He'll never get bonus XP?

the secret fire

2018-03-26, 12:18 AM

Charisma has a few major power points: Deception and Persuasion are keyed to Charisma, and a Hexblade Warlock 2 dip gets a player Charisma to attack and damage with melee attacks and a d10 ranged cantrip. So something like Bard x/Warlock 2 gets Cha to attack, damage, supporting spellcasting and supporting its primary skills. Int would probably be less common as a pure dump stat if there were an easy-to-access dip (Warmage 2 or something) that gave +Int to attack and damage, or to AC, or to Initiative or really any combat roll.

If only there were a class that gets Int bonus to, I dunno, AC and Con checks at 2nd level! Maybe something for Elves that involves singing and spinning around with a sword, or some other fruity elf stuff. Alas...

Nifft

2018-03-26, 12:20 AM

If only there were a class that gets Int bonus to, I dunno, AC and Con checks at 2nd level! Maybe something for Elves that involves singing and spinning around with a sword, or some other fruity elf stuff. Alas...

Make sure it's just another type of Wizard though.

There's no way we can allow TWO classes to benefit from Intelligence.

the secret fire

2018-03-26, 12:24 AM

It's questionable if tactical ability is related to Int in the first place.

The entire D&D system of breaking up the mental stats into three separate categories does violence to how the human mind actually works, and hearkens back to the days when many people believed in the now thoroughly debunked theory of "multiple intelligences". Except in the cases of congenital dysfunction (autism, etc.) or mental disease, cognitive tasks correlate highly with one another. A person who is book smart generally also has a high degree of cunning, and is also better at processing social cues.

Rote practice can grant a certain basic tactical competence at squad level maneuvers, but a person of low intelligence is never going to be tactically brilliant in the way that a clever person can become. The D&D system simply does not do a good job of mirroring how the mental life of a human being works in reality (and that's ignoring the fact that CHA also mixes in physical appearance).

Tanarii

2018-03-26, 12:34 AM

The entire D&D system of breaking up the mental stats into three separate categories does violence to how the human mind actually works, and hearkens back to the days when many people believed in the now thoroughly debunked theory of "multiple intelligences". Except in the cases of congenital dysfunction (autism, etc.) or mental disease, cognitive tasks correlate highly with one another. A person who is book smart generally also has a high degree of cunning, and is also better at processing social cues.

Rote practice can grant a certain basic tactical competence at squad level maneuvers, but a person of low intelligence is never going to be tactically brilliant in the way that a clever person can become. The D&D system simply does not do a good job of mirroring how the mental life of a human being works in reality (and that's ignoring the fact that CHA also mixes in physical appearance).
First of all, I was assuming we were walking talking about squad level tactics, because that's what most D&D games are about. If we're talking about tactical acumen at an army level, pretty sure many folks would base that on D&D's Int and even have checks involved.

Secondly, as I said, I see the ability scores are surrounding player decision making, not replacing it. So mental ability scores either provide different kinds of information (most often via Int or Wis, but also Cha for gathering information/rumors), or resolve a question/task (common for all ability scores). In that regard, it's okay to break up mental ability scores into broad categories for different kinds of information gathered or task resolution capacity.

I mean, what you said also applies to physical ability scores. There is often crossover/correlation between physical strength, agility/balance, and endurance in the human physique IRL

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-26, 07:48 AM

But the guy saying he 8 int character has some sort of super tactics is BS. It is metagaming.

I'm not entirely sure what you refer to with "metagaming" here.

Player: "I have super tactics!"

DM: "We'll see about that. What do you do?"

Seems fine.

Player: "I have super tactics!"

DM: "Yeah, right. Let's put your fig out here as usual, unless the wizard has better advice for you."

Seems dubious.

Oh, my player can have ideas don't restrict me. that is what you guys want.

Ideas from everybody sounds like a desirable thing. Every character is supposed to be a hero or hero in the making. It would be terrible if there was a mandate to consider every character of middling Intelligence to be a mook carrying out the designs of the wizard character.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-26, 08:11 AM

Make sure it's just another type of Wizard though.

There's no way we can allow TWO classes to benefit from Intelligence.

Well, fortunately there's one that gives +Int to Initiative. Wait - that one's a Wizard too.

HolyDraconus

2018-03-26, 01:26 PM

It's a dump stat cause there's little mechanical bonus for it and people hate role-playing stats properly. You can add a second class based on it at this point and the only way that would matter is if it was broken. Kinda wished they kept Lore wizard as is and put it in Xanathar.

I will say this again for emphasis: people hate role-playing stats properly. They will role play that 18 all day long, cause they're good at it. Give them an 8 (or 6, orcs) in this stat or another and it's like, "well, it's not a hindrance you see, I just feel that it's not the highest on my list of things to need."
Look at Raistlin. Dude did NOT have an 18 in any stat at the start but had an 8 in con (which supposedly dropped to a 6) and went on to be a freaking god. Yes, he was a dnd character before he became a storied legend. It was role played extremely well. Having a low stat isn't a crime: it's an opportunity to make a truly epic character.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-26, 01:53 PM

I will say this again for emphasis: people hate role-playing stats properly. They will role play that 18 all day long, cause they're good at it. Give them an 8 (or 6, orcs) in this stat or another and it's like, "well, it's not a hindrance you see, I just feel that it's not the highest on my list of things to need."

How many people are capable of effectively roleplaying a 20 Int? Probably, like, four people out of the whole body of people playing D and D at any given time. Tleilaxu_Ghola from the old 399 boards could do it, but I can't imagine anyone else.

The thing is that the vast majority of characters aren't going to have anything lower than an 8 in a mental score, and their other one probably isn't going to be lower than 10. A dude with an 8 and a 10 Int and Wis is less intelligent than average but well within the normal range. A regular boring human adventurer using the default array has a 9 and an 11. Probably at least one person at your table, realistically, is as smart as that character. I know we all like to think we have 16 Int and Wis, but we don't.

I really think you're bringing some baggage from your table here and applying it more broadly than it should be.

Tanarii

2018-03-26, 01:56 PM

I will say this again for emphasis: people hate role-playing stats properly.I'll say this again for emphasis: some DMs apparently hate using the 5e resolution system in a way that makes roleplaying ability scores automatic, instead of blaming it on the player.

Seriously though, if you sometimes call for checks on things that you think they should "roleplay" using Int, it'll happen. If you never call for checks on those things then clearly that thing you're claiming they should "roleplay" isn't actually Int related. You can't blame the player for how they play their character in that case.

The Jack

2018-03-26, 02:08 PM

One idea I came up with recently, which is deliciously moronic, is to overhaul the idea of intelligence casting/multiclassing.

EK's/AT's should be considered 1/3rd wizards, gaining 1/3rd their level of prepared spells+their Int modifier. They should get the ability to use spell books and ritual casting. (these work together, so 8 levels of EK and 4 levels of AT should make 12 levels and thus equal a 4th level wizard)

The multiclassing rule where, say you got 10 levels of sorcerer and 7 levels of wizard, so you have 9th level slots but can only really cast 5th level sorcerer spells and 4th level wizard spells... Wizards (and other int casters) should be the exception. For the wizard; "The Spells must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots." So you might've been a 19th level cleric before you took that one bit of wizard... Cast that wish. Maybe you could throw in additional caveats there, Like the spell level must be less than half your wizard level+int modifier, or a spell takes an extra preparation slot for every level it is above your int caster level...

I'm a little sad that there's no half-caster for wizards. A paladin is a cleric-fighter, A Ranger is a Druid-fighter. There's no half-arcane dude.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-26, 02:13 PM

smcmike

2018-03-26, 02:34 PM

I've always been annoyed that there isn't an Int-based Bard. NOT ALL BARDS ARE PRANCING DANCING SING-Y JERKS. Lore Bards, for instance, should be Int-based, not Cha-based.

Think of them as dynamic university lecturers instead of rock stars or clowns.

Nifft

2018-03-26, 02:54 PM

I've always been annoyed that there isn't an Int-based Bard. NOT ALL BARDS ARE PRANCING DANCING SING-Y JERKS. Lore Bards, for instance, should be Int-based, not Cha-based.

Some Bards are insufferably smug jerks, whose sarcastically vicious mockery is so dry the target suffers desiccation damage.

Some Bards are stoic military leaders whose battle-cries inspire from the front line.

That is to say: Charisma isn't just about prancing & dancing.

There are many ways to be a pretty jerk.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-26, 03:25 PM

Some Bards are insufferably smug jerks, whose sarcastically vicious mockery is so dry the target suffers desiccation damage.

Some Bards are stoic military leaders whose battle-cries inspire from the front line.

That is to say: Charisma isn't just about prancing & dancing.

There are many ways to be a pretty jerk.

The annoying thing is that bards are tied to performance when they don't have to be. The spellcasting focus for bards is a musical instrument, and Charisma is the casting stat because Bardic abilities "come from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration". Bardic Inspiration and Song of Rest are performative abilities.

5E is much better than 3.X in this respect, admittedly, but there's still a niche for a non-Cha Bard, like a historian, riddlemaster or collector of stories. Lore Wizards and Lore Bards approach this, but the focus is on the accumulation of magical knowledge rather than mundane.

MaxWilson

2018-03-26, 04:09 PM

+6 damage is a totally mechanical concept. Players having ideas isn't. The penalty for low Int is already expressed in the game's mechanics: you are bad at Int-keyed skills, and you aren't able to multiclass into certain classes. People of modest intelligence have good ideas all the time, and people of enormous intelligence think a bunch of really unbelievably stupid things just as often. This idea that because your character has an Int of 8 they aren't able to reason at all is silly. Nearly every character in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign is kind of a genius in their own way.

I think you're conflating the characteristics of the player with the characteristics of the player character here.

Bob the Rock with Int 8 may be quite a bit on the thick side, thick enough that he probably does not read for fun and has trouble making change, but that doesn't mean the DM is going to stop his player from speaking the words to a answer a difficult riddle or logic puzzle. Players can do whatever they want, always.

However, such brilliance is out of character for Bob the Rock, and you can expect other characters to marvel a bit, especially if you do this a lot. "Out of the mouths of babes!", etc. (Hopefully not, "I'm starting to wonder if you're really still Bob inside that skull." C.f. intellect devourers.)

It should also be unsurprising if some players choose to self-limit so as not to behave out of character; or choose to assign a high value to Intelligence despite not deriving any mechanical benefit, so that they don't have to self-limit in order to play a PC in character. I myself don't like roleplaying a PC with Int below 11ish unless that PC is also pretty much mute.

MaxWilson

2018-03-26, 04:19 PM

But why do you have to dump Int on your fighter in the first place?

Unless you've rolled badly (and have ended up with multiple scores below 10), you could easily choose to dump Cha or even Wis instead.

It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it - you want to be smart but you don't want to actually pay for the privilege by investing points into intelligence.

I think you're misinterpreting what The Jack wrote. He said he would self-limit the excellence of his plans, but he didn't want the DM messing with them to make them stupid. He's willing to pay--he just wants to pay using his own judgment and not the DM's.

That seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me. Player expertise can activate or trump character expertise; but character incompetence should never trump player expertise. If there's a riddle, "Speak my name and break me", and I answer "Silence," and the DM makes me roll an intelligence check to avoid saying something stupid like "Eggs" instead, the DM is intruding on my roleplaying of my character. It's none of his business what I do, even if I have Int 3.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't answer the riddle that way if I had Int 3, except under really, really exceptional circumstances like parroting back an answer that had previously been established as drilled into me from the cradle. (I might retroactively establish that bit of character history if I found it amusing enough and the character's backstory had room for it.)

Players play PCs. DMs play everything else.

GlenSmash!

2018-03-26, 04:25 PM

Tanarii

2018-03-26, 04:31 PM

GlenSmash!

2018-03-26, 04:51 PM

And this is why no one should ever turn to Matt Mercer for DM ... ah crap. I hate it when someone I vilify demonstrates my position. :smallamused:

I'm pretty hard on him on other stuff but credit where credit is due.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-26, 05:10 PM

I think you're conflating the characteristics of the player with the characteristics of the player character here.

Bob the Rock with Int 8 may be quite a bit on the thick side, thick enough that he probably does not read for fun and has trouble making change, but that doesn't mean the DM is going to stop his player from speaking the words to a answer a difficult riddle or logic puzzle. Players can do whatever they want, always.

However, such brilliance is out of character for Bob the Rock, and you can expect other characters to marvel a bit, especially if you do this a lot. "Out of the mouths of babes!", etc. (Hopefully not, "I'm starting to wonder if you're really still Bob inside that skull." C.f. intellect devourers.)

So add Int checks to those riddles or logic puzzles if you want to make sure the smart characters are answering them. And remember that, assuming a random, average gaming group, probably one or more of the dudes at the table would have an 8 Int. 8-12 Int is more than two-thirds of people. If your 8 Int player is playing a 14 Int character, and your 14 Int player is playing an 8 Int character, it all evens out. Where it doesn't is when you say that the 14 Int player has to behave like he's got his character's 8 Int without giving the other guy special advantages to play up to the 14 that's written on his sheet.

I also want to make clear: I'm separating player characteristics and character characteristics. The guy I am responding to is saying that a player coming up with an idea and sharing it with his table is exactly equivalent to writing numbers on his character sheet. That's ludicrous.

Caelic

2018-03-26, 05:23 PM

It should also be unsurprising if some players choose to self-limit so as not to behave out of character; or choose to assign a high value to Intelligence despite not deriving any mechanical benefit, so that they don't have to self-limit in order to play a PC in character. I myself don't like roleplaying a PC with Int below 11ish unless that PC is also pretty much mute.

Pretty much this, yeah. I'm the "idea guy" in our group; always have been. This past week, we found an inscription in a language none of us spoke. I worked out what it said based on actually manually translating the runes. (My character's been copying down inscriptions in that language for months, so I have written records of both the runes and the eventual translations we acquired.)

There's no way I'd feel right doing that with an 8 Int character. I don't think anyone would actually stop me from doing it, but I'd feel guilty all the same.

GlenSmash!

2018-03-26, 05:29 PM

2D8HP

2018-03-26, 05:33 PM

I was watching last weeks Critical role, well listening to it, and DM Matt Mercer called for a ton of Investigation checks for characters to search for things, and a lot of flat Intelligence checks for characters to recall things.

I think except for Stealth checks, Int checks were the most frequently called for checks. even more than Perception.

I think if I want to make Int less of a dump stat, I should call for more Int checks.

And this is why no one should ever turn to Matt Mercer for DM ... ah crap. I hate it when someone I vilify demonstrates my position. :smallamused:

I'm pretty hard on him on other stuff but credit where credit is due.

I wonder if that's where my next-to-last DM (a pretty good one I thought) got the idea?

In my limited experience, DM"s sometimes have Investigation instead of Perception to detect traps without triggering them, and the like, which greatly increases INT based rolls[...]

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-26, 05:39 PM

Pretty much this, yeah. I'm the "idea guy" in our group; always have been. This past week, we found an inscription in a language none of us spoke. I worked out what it said based on actually manually translating the runes. (My character's been copying down inscriptions in that language for months, so I have written records of both the runes and the eventual translations we acquired.)

There's no way I'd feel right doing that with an 8 Int character. I don't think anyone would actually stop me from doing it, but I'd feel guilty all the same.

I dunno how I feel about this sort of thing. Absent other information, it's the DM creating a puzzle to be solved by the players, not the characters. Like, could it be solved through making Int checks? Would making Int checks move the players meaningfully towards a solution? If neither of those things are true, why should the Int score of the characters factor in? It seems like the work is being done by the player, not by the abilities of the character. Contrast that with an equivalent puzzle where Int checks could supply a partial answer, or even a complete key for a high result, or the name of a person who could translate, allowing the characters to solve an Int-based puzzle through Cha (Persuasion) or some other means.

MaxWilson

2018-03-26, 05:59 PM

So add Int checks to those riddles or logic puzzles if you want to make sure the smart characters are answering them.

It would be fine if a player consulted a DM before answering, but there are other ways to decide too, and it's none of the DM's business in any case.

It would be a huge mistake though for the DM to add Int checks as a precondition for answering a riddle. It's as big a mistake as a DM forcing PCs to roll dice in order to act against their alignment. (But see below.)

And remember that, assuming a random, average gaming group, probably one or more of the dudes at the table would have an 8 Int. 8-12 Int is more than two-thirds of people.

Int 12 is very, very different from Int 8. Int 12 is maybe the brightest kid in your geometry class. You can probably have a conversation with him. Int 8 is the maybe the dumbest guy in your infantry platoon. It is very difficult to have a conversation with him. Most of the things that interest you are unintelligible to him.

If your 8 Int player is playing a 14 Int character, and your 14 Int player is playing an 8 Int character, it all evens out. Where it doesn't is when you say that the 14 Int player has to behave like he's got his character's 8 Int without giving the other guy special advantages to play up to the 14 that's written on his sheet.

Who is saying this? I thought you were saying this a second ago, but now I'm beginning to wonder if I misunderstood you. Maybe you're not arguing in favor either of the DM imposing roleplaying requirements on the player of the Int 8 PC. Hopefully none of us are arguing in favor of that.

I also want to make clear: I'm separating player characteristics and character characteristics. The guy I am responding to is saying that a player coming up with an idea and sharing it with his table is exactly equivalent to writing numbers on his character sheet. That's ludicrous.

Okay, noted. Apologies if I misunderstood you at any point.

==========================

Pretty much this, yeah. I'm the "idea guy" in our group; always have been. This past week, we found an inscription in a language none of us spoke. I worked out what it said based on actually manually translating the runes. (My character's been copying down inscriptions in that language for months, so I have written records of both the runes and the eventual translations we acquired.)

There's no way I'd feel right doing that with an 8 Int character. I don't think anyone would actually stop me from doing it, but I'd feel guilty all the same.

Consider this rune idea stolen! And well-played.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-26, 06:11 PM

Tanarii

2018-03-26, 06:33 PM

Where do the rules say any of this?

I thought the difference between 8 and 12 was a +2 modifier on a d20 roll.Ya. I used to try and map IQ distribution to 3d6 distribution*. But D&D Int doesn't map that way at all, not the least of which because ability scores are, per the PHB, both inherent ability and training. While IQ is arguable improved by various factors (which blacken it's name), in theory it's not supposed to be.

*In case you're wondering, it'd be Int 8 = IQ 85, and Int 13 = IQ 115.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-26, 06:38 PM

Int 12 is very, very different from Int 8. Int 12 is maybe the brightest kid in your geometry class. You can probably have a conversation with him. Int 8 is the maybe the dumbest guy in your infantry platoon. It is very difficult to have a conversation with him. Most of the things that interest you are unintelligible to him.

I have always understood it to be that each point of bonus (or malus) is one standard deviation.

I do think there are a number of folks in this thread advocating for DMs to restrict players to the Int that's written on their sheet. That's fine if it's a decision made by the player, but I oppose any DM making that a requirement for their game. You and I are in agreement here.

When I say "add Int checks" I don't mean create a situation where the player does all the work to manually figure out the answer, then impose an Int check as a requirement for giving that answer. I'd prefer to see character intelligence and player intelligence working in tandem: the player can figure out the answer by hand; the character can get a partial key (or a complete one!) with a DC 20 Int check; the character can get the name of a possible translator with an Investigation or Knowledge check and then get services from that translator with a Persuasion or Deception or Reaching Things On The Very High Shelf check. And if that comes out with the dumb character played by the smart player figuring out the right answer, it's because the dumb character worked really hard and the smart characters were too busy (or something similar).

What's the point of the puzzle? If it's to challenge the players, let the players figure it out without regard for characters. If it's to challenge the characters, make sure the players can use the tools that their characters possess to solve or bypass the puzzle.

Sapão

2018-03-26, 06:43 PM

Int is bad spellcasting. Why? The Charisma Saving Throw Spells are the most dangerous spells. Also, Cha has great synergy.

Wis is average stat.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-03-26, 06:44 PM

And there goes the neighbourhood.

MaxWilson

2018-03-26, 07:13 PM

Where do the rules say any of this?

Inferred from stat blocks, and informed by labels on Int in previous editions.

I thought the difference between 8 and 12 was a +2 modifier on a d20 roll.

A human isn't merely +5 modifier points smarter than a mindless black pudding--modifiers aren't the whole story. There's also roleplaying to consider, and precedents based on monster stats.

Int 8 vs 12 is the same magnitude as the difference between a gorilla (Int 6) and a typical Guard (Int 10). Call it IQ 85-90, if we're being generous to gorillas. It's almost half the range between the human mean (Int 10, IQ 100) and the smartest-possible human (Int 20, and what seems to be approximately IQ 200).

The Jack

2018-03-26, 07:54 PM

MaxWilson

2018-03-26, 08:39 PM

They were really generous with that Gorrilla, who should have a three-five stat. Maybe a four would be an impressive animal; Dolphins, chimps, cows, pigs.

Chimpanzees are capable of strategy, They have organized skirmishes and territories with other chimps with surprising regularity. Baboons are known to take hostages. All these creatures have int's... Does a gorilla really have 6 int? I suppose that's part of the fantasy... but someone with 8 intelligence is not restricted to the battleplan of "I charge" Flanking, terrain, stealth, ambush, flushing, captives, psychological warfare... It's all exhibited in creatures far below the dumbest of humans. Granted, those Australian eagles have evolved pyromania into their hunting tactics by simple evolution and the act is probably more like code than a sentient decision, but war tactics are intuitive.

Quantitative reasoning isn't intuitive for an average human, much less a below-average human. At IQ 85, your grasp of all kinds of subtle tradeoffs is going to be off. You'd probably think Champion's expanded crit range is good compared to Battlemaster maneuvers because it results in big damage rolls when it works, despite the negligible effect on expected damage value; in-game, you'd fail to see the tactical virtues of fighting at long range when your AC is higher (even if you're not a Sharpshooter). And there's no chance at all that you'd realize that three Orcs are more than twice as dangerous as only two Orcs, so your threat assessment will be off.

In short, they can attempt cunning tactics, but they won't have a good sense of when and when not to employ them.

RSP

2018-03-26, 08:56 PM

Quantitative reasoning isn't intuitive for an average human, much less a below-average human. At IQ 85, your grasp of all kinds of subtle tradeoffs is going to be off. You'd probably think Champion's expanded crit range is good compared to Battlemaster maneuvers because it results in big damage rolls when it works, despite the negligible effect on expected damage value; in-game, you'd fail to see the tactical virtues of fighting at long range when your AC is higher (even if you're not a Sharpshooter). And there's no chance at all that you'd realize that three Orcs are more than twice as dangerous as only two Orcs, so your threat assessment will be off.

In short, they can attempt cunning tactics, but they won't have a good sense of when and when not to employ them.

So, basically, you're saying if you prefer the Champion over the Battlemaster, you're Int is 8...

MaxWilson

2018-03-26, 09:02 PM

So, basically, you're saying if you prefer the Champion over the Battlemaster, you're Int is 8...

Nice try. No.

Tanarii

2018-03-26, 09:05 PM

Int 8 vs 12 is the same magnitude as the difference between a gorilla (Int 6) and a typical Guard (Int 10). Call it IQ 85-90, if we're being generous to gorillas. It's almost half the range between the human mean (Int 10, IQ 100) and the smartest-possible human (Int 20, and what seems to be approximately IQ 200).
The effects of Int is linear, even if the distribution is not. IQ is also a non-linear distribution. If you match curves to 3d6, Int 13 is about IQ 115. An IQ of 3 would be about IQ 55, and an IQ of 18 about 145.

More importantly, you can't match curves, and Int 20 cannot be IQ 200. Because Int is explicitly natural ability and training. And that's before you use ASIs to boost up to Int 20. Whereas IQ 200 is (theoretically) all natural ability.

MaxWilson

2018-03-26, 09:16 PM

The effects of Int is linear, even if the distribution is not. IQ is also a non-linear distribution. If you match curves to 3d6, Int 13 is about IQ 115. An IQ of 3 would be about IQ 55, and an IQ of 18 about 145.

Can't be, because Int 20 is the human maximum, and IQ 145 isn't anywhere close to the human maximum.

More importantly, you can't match curves, and Int 20 cannot be IQ 200. Because Int is explicitly natural ability and training. And that's before you use ASIs to boost up to Int 20. Whereas IQ 200 is (theoretically) all natural ability.

Here's how Intelligence is defined in 5E:

Intelligence
Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

That pretty well describes g, which is known to correlate with IQ. Those traits don't seem to be trainable or teachable except to the minor extent that IQ is also teachable. It's very appropriate therefore to equate Int 20 with the human maximum for IQ, which seems to be around 200 if you discount William James Sidis.

Tanarii

2018-03-26, 09:30 PM

Those traits don't seem to be trainable or teachable except to the minor extent that IQ is also teachable.
All PHB ability scores represent a combination of natural talent and training. This is explicit. From the basic rules / PHB, on the first page of Chaptre 7, using ability scores:

Ability Scores and Modifiers
Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.

So Int 20 doesn't correspond to maximum g or IQ. (I avoid calling it spearman's g because that has an even worse odor than IQ.) An Int 20 character may be a demigod (level 19 character) that started off with normal Int 10, has an IQ of 100, and trained his Intelligence Ability Score up to astounding levels. Unlikely of course. More likely he's a Wizard that started with an IQ of 120 or so, has read a lot, and has practiced lots of tricks to increase his deductive thinking. And as a result maybe has an Int of 20 as level 8, by the time he's one of the most powerful Wizards in the kingdom.

Or some combinations thereof. Your Int 14 level one character may be somewhat smart and well read and trained in mnemonic tricks. Your Int 8 character with Investigation may be poorly educated, but have good deductive skills and normal IQ.

2D8HP

2018-03-26, 09:55 PM

....Int 12 is very, very different from Int 8. Int 12 is maybe the brightest kid in your geometry class. You can probably have a conversation with him. Int 8 is the maybe the dumbest guy in your infantry platoon. It is very difficult to have a conversation with him. Most of the things that interest you are unintelligible to him....

I've never served in the military, but I've worked with a lot of former Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers, and "common interests" haven't had much bearing on how well I worked with them.

Except for the Investigation skill, INT in 5e seems to represent in large part reading comprehension (from Lore and Spell books), and memory, and I can't help but again think of the Laborer on my crew who I've worked with for six years now, and an Electrician who I worked with for five years (until his arrogance and lack of common sense got him escorted off the job), the Laborer is nearly illiterate, but he consistently comes up with good ideas towards actually getting work done, the Electrician on-the-other-hand (unlike me) was privileged with a college education, and I know that the exam to be an Apprentice Electrician (having taken it myself) stresses reading comprehension and text memory more than other trades (the plumbing apprenticeship entrance test, for example, was more about arithmetic and visual memory), so I have little doubt that in D&D terms the Electrician would have a higher INT, but his common sense (and morals) were lacking and I wouldn't follow him into battle!

Quantitative reasoning isn't intuitive for an average human, much less a below-average human. At IQ 85, your grasp of all kinds of subtle tradeoffs is going to be off. You'd probably think Champion's expanded crit range is good compared to Battlemaster maneuvers because it results in big damage rolls when it works, despite the negligible effect on expected damage value; in-game, you'd fail to see the tactical virtues of fighting at long range when your AC is higher (even if you're not a Sharpshooter). And there's no chance at all that you'd realize that three Orcs are more than twice as dangerous as only two Orcs, so your threat assessment will be off.

In short, they can attempt cunning tactics, but they won't have a good sense of when and when not to employ them.

Hey! I play a Champion!

:annoyed:

So, basically, you're saying if you prefer the Champion over the Battlemaster, you're Int is 8...

Well... in my case that may be a fair cop.

:redface:

Mandragola

2018-03-27, 02:28 PM

Couple of thoughts.

First, a bunch of people in this thread have said you’d have to be stupid to be an adventurer. I don’t agree with that at all. Not adventurers are just going into the cave to loot the place. Some are going in to further some good (or sometimes evil) objective - like to rescue someone or prevent the evil ritual from happening. Other characters don’t decide to be adventurers at all - they are just in the right/wrong place at the time.

I’ve always thought that clever adventurers should live longer than stupid ones - and it’s annoying that mechanics-wise they really don’t.

My proposal is to use intelligence for more stuff, and dexterity for less. I think initiative is a good place to start. Use the int bonus instead of dex so that the person who thinks fastest acts first.

Another thing you could do is bring back knowledge checks about monsters. In previous editions skills that helped you identify monsters could also tell you stuff about them, like whether they resisted certain types of damage. Making those skills more relevant would make int less of a dump stat.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-27, 02:38 PM

My proposal is to use intelligence for more stuff, and dexterity for less. I think initiative is a good place to start. Use the int bonus instead of dex so that the person who thinks fastest acts first.

Another thing you could do is bring back knowledge checks about monsters. In previous editions skills that helped you identify monsters could also tell you stuff about them, like whether they resisted certain types of damage. Making those skills more relevant would make int less of a dump stat.

I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I'm on board with the central point that Int isn't keyed to enough stuff. I liked the Collector of Stories and Knowledge Devotion feats from 3.5 as ways to make Int and the collection of lore and information relevant in combat, and I liked Kung Fu Genius and Carmedine Monk for the same reasons. I've made my case for an Int-based Bard (heck, or a Wis-based Bard!). And I find the division into "nature stuff = Wis, book stuff = Int" to be increasingly obsolete.

Tanarii makes the point that this is DM-specific, as well; Int isn't such a dump stat in games where Int checks are frequently called for.

MaxWilson

2018-03-27, 02:48 PM

Tanarii makes the point that this is DM-specific, as well; Int isn't such a dump stat in games where Int checks are frequently called for.

When I ran 5E, I used an old-school initiative system somewhat related to DMG Speed Factor initiative, wherein every round round, every creature declares an action (smartest creatures last), and then all actions are resolved concurrently (rolling initiative as necessary to establish sequence, which often isn't necessary).

Boosting Int was quite a popular choice, even for PCs whose classes didn't benefit from it mechanically. I remember in particular a Shadow Monk/Druid who by level 12 had boosted his Int by 3 full points, from 9 all the way to 12. (He had already achieved Dex 20 due to xixchil biomodifications during play, or I think he would have boosted Dex instead.)

2D8HP

2018-03-27, 03:18 PM

Couple of thoughts.

First, a bunch of people in this thread have said you’d have to be stupid to be an adventurer....

Um.... I don't think that it's been a "bunch", I think it's just been me.

And @Mandragola, while you've cited some reasons for folks who are not desperate and bold idiots to adventure, that still doesn't have any bearing on most high INT PC's are played as if they're "brave" (stupid) IME (I'm just not seeing any smart tactics in play by high INT PC's, by and large they don't use cover, and just run into combat without trying to avoid it, get right up to melee range with antagonists assuming success, et cetra. My usually 8 to 10 INT PC is usually the only PC to ttegard getting into melee range a bad idea).

If DM's are to police PC's with below average INT not behaving moronically, are they then going to police high INT PC's that do behave like morons?

Is the next step, "Joe, you're an idiot, you don't get to play a 16 INT PC"?

Frankly seeing the orders that higher in the hierarchy college educated white collar types give actual working people IRL I very much question the wisdom and even the utility of high IQ anyway.

...Tanarii makes the point that this is DM-specific, as well; Int isn't such a dump stat in games where Int checks are frequently called for.

DM's requiring Investigation instead of Perception, or just lower DC's for Investigation than Perception, makes all the difference.

IIRC Lost Mines of Phandelvar has an Athletics or Acrobatics check to cross a dangerous bridge, so that kind of substitution has precedent.

MaxWilson

2018-03-27, 03:41 PM

Hey! I play a Champion!

:annoyed:

There are all kinds of reasons someone could play a Champion. Maybe you like Remarkable Athlete, or want Survivor, or just don't like spells and fiddly maneuvers and don't own or play with Xanathar's Guide. Maybe you're using some kind of crit-fishing multiclass build with Paladin and Warlock smites and Elven Accuracy, and the Champion's ability is an important part of your plan. Maybe you just really like the name "Champion."

That's not the same thing as thinking the Champion's Improved Critical is an impactful ability because it produces big numbers when it triggers. Unless of course you do--in which case you're mistaken. As long as you realize that it's basically a ribbon, feel free to enjoy the ribbon any way you want.

The point is, you may not have Int 8 or the equivalent (maybe you've got Int 10-12), but someone with Int 8 has less chance than you do to realize why the Champion's Improved Critical is not important. And they probably won't see other things that are obvious to those who are, well, smarter.

It's more fun IMO just to play a character with an Int high enough to play naturally, instead of trying to force your brain to emulate a half-wit's.

Angelalex242

2018-03-27, 03:52 PM

There are all kinds of reasons someone could play a Champion. Maybe you like Remarkable Athlete, or want Survivor, or just don't like spells and fiddly maneuvers and don't own or play with Xanathar's Guide. Maybe you're using some kind of crit-fishing multiclass build with Paladin and Warlock smites and Elven Accuracy, and the Champion's ability is an important part of your plan. Maybe you just really like the name "Champion."

That's not the same thing as thinking the Champion's Improved Critical is an impactful ability because it produces big numbers when it triggers. Unless of course you do--in which case you're mistaken. As long as you realize that it's basically a ribbon, feel free to enjoy the ribbon any way you want.

The point is, you may not have Int 8 or the equivalent (maybe you've got Int 10-12), but someone with Int 8 has less chance than you do to realize why the Champion's Improved Critical is not important. And they probably won't see other things that are obvious to those who are, well, smarter.

It's more fun IMO just to play a character with an Int high enough to play naturally, instead of trying to force your brain to emulate a half-wit's.

I do think the DM should help the wizard with 20 Int get ideas other characters don't. But then, he should also warn clerics and druids packing Wis 20 when something foolish is about to happen.

To the 20 Int character: Ya know, that brick looks kinda out of place...

To the 20 Wis character: Your rogue has that glint in his eye, like he wants to steal from the royal palace. That's probably a terrible idea.

RSP

2018-03-27, 04:13 PM

I do think the DM should help the wizard with 20 Int get ideas other characters don't. But then, he should also warn clerics and druids packing Wis 20 when something foolish is about to happen.

To the 20 Int character: Ya know, that brick looks kinda out of place...

To the 20 Wis character: Your rogue has that glint in his eye, like he wants to steal from the royal palace. That's probably a terrible idea.

Aren't these already just Perception and Insight checks (and therefore be attached to the skill in question as opposed to tied to high abilities)?

Angelalex242

2018-03-27, 04:41 PM

Aren't these already just Perception and Insight checks (and therefore be attached to the skill in question as opposed to tied to high abilities)?

Perception and Insight are wisdom.

Investigation is the Int skill.

And the Wizard with 20 int is still the best investigator.

2D8HP

2018-03-27, 05:11 PM

....It's more fun IMO just to play a character with an Int high enough to play naturally, instead of trying to force your brain to emulate a half-wit's.

Well in my case since I don't keep and carry notes from one session to the next, given how much I forget between sessions ("What NPC'S are we trying to find? Why do we need the Talisman?), I am playing naturally when my PC's have below average INT, higher INT would be unnatural for me.

MaxWilson

2018-03-27, 05:17 PM

Well in my case since I don't keep and carry notes from one session to the next, given how much I forget between sessions ("What NPC'S are we trying to find? Why do we need the Talisman?), I am playing naturally when my PC's have below average INT, higher INT would be unnatural for me.

That's totally reasonable.

Nifft

2018-03-27, 05:24 PM

Investigation is the Int skill.

And the Wizard with 20 int is still the best investigator.

When the Wizard finally figures out the key to the case, that key is already in the pocket of a Rogue with 20 Int and Expertise.

(Hopefully an Arcane Trickster.)

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-03-27, 05:46 PM

Perception and Insight are wisdom.

Investigation is the Int skill.

And the Wizard with 20 int is still the best investigator.

I imagine that the next 5E game I run will probably turn Insight into a flex skill that runs off the higher of a character's Int or Wis.

Angelalex242

2018-03-27, 06:04 PM

When the Wizard finally figures out the key to the case, that key is already in the pocket of a Rogue with 20 Int and Expertise.

(Hopefully an Arcane Trickster.)

Well, the rogue probably had 20 dex, but I'll give him 19 int if he finds a headband of intellect (The wizard has no use for it.)

RSP

2018-03-27, 06:27 PM

Perception and Insight are wisdom.

Investigation is the Int skill.

And the Wizard with 20 int is still the best investigator.

The Wiz with 20 Int is only the best investigator if they also have proficiency in investigation. [edit: and that's only if not counting Expertise.]

Which was my point: saying DMs should do those things because a character has a maxed out stat doesn't really make sense. Doing those things for those characters who have high proficiency in those skills would make more sense.

Angelalex242

2018-03-27, 07:54 PM

RSP

2018-03-27, 07:57 PM

Well, figure a wizard's job is getting all knowledge skills+Investigation with his skills and background. If he doesn't have all the int skills, who else will?

Um, so the only way to play is to make characters who only have skills that match their most important stat? We play at very different tables.

Angelalex242

2018-03-27, 08:10 PM

Um, so the only way to play is to make characters who only have skills that match their most important stat? We play at very different tables.

Never the only way. Just the most efficient way.

Pex

2018-03-27, 08:17 PM

The Wiz with 20 Int is only the best investigator if they also have proficiency in investigation. [edit: and that's only if not counting Expertise.]

Which was my point: saying DMs should do those things because a character has a maxed out stat doesn't really make sense. Doing those things for those characters who have high proficiency in those skills would make more sense.

We're already in house rule territory, but that's even more of a house rule. 5E does not place any special significance on being proficient in something. You're more likely to succeed at various DCs and can make the harder ones more than non-proficiency or even have a chance for the really tough ones, but that's it. Proficiency is only a game math bonus. Any extra emphasis placed on being proficient or not is the DM doing it, not the game. There are exceptions. I recall reading that only those proficient with Herbalism tools can make healing potions. There is precedent to place specialness on being proficient and it makes sense to do so, but 5E doesn't encourage it.

However, what do you when the Wizard with 20 Intelligence is not proficient in Investigation so you don't want to give free hints but the 8 Intelligence Not-A-Wizard is proficient? Does he get free hints? With point buy it's minimum 8th level to get 20 IN. Proficiency is +3, so the 8 IN Not-A-Wizard has a total +2 to Investigation while the Non-Proficient Wizard has a +5. Who gets the free hints?

Tanarii

2018-03-27, 10:32 PM

Well, figure a wizard's job is getting all knowledge skills+Investigation with his skills and background. If he doesn't have all the int skills, who else will?
Vuman / Half-elf Warlock Sage.

Warlock is the only class that natively has all 5 Int skills on the class proficiency list btw.

Angelalex242

2018-03-27, 10:34 PM

Vuman / Half-elf Warlock Sage.

Warlock is the only class that natively has all 5 Int skills on the class proficiency list btw.

Sure, but the Warlock probably dumped int and has 20 Charisma.

Tanarii

2018-03-27, 10:53 PM

Sure, but the Warlock probably dumped int and has 20 Charisma.
Only Warlocks I've ever seen dump Int are Str-based ones, and even then it's a toss-up with Wis. Otherwise they almost universally dump Str. That includes in AL. From what I can recall. It's been a while.

RSP

2018-03-27, 11:06 PM

We're already in house rule territory, but that's even more of a house rule. 5E does not place any special significance on being proficient in something. You're more likely to succeed at various DCs and can make the harder ones more than non-proficiency or even have a chance for the really tough ones, but that's it. Proficiency is only a game math bonus. Any extra emphasis placed on being proficient or not is the DM doing it, not the game. There are exceptions. I recall reading that only those proficient with Herbalism tools can make healing potions. There is precedent to place specialness on being proficient and it makes sense to do so, but 5E doesn't encourage it.

However, what do you when the Wizard with 20 Intelligence is not proficient in Investigation so you don't want to give free hints but the 8 Intelligence Not-A-Wizard is proficient? Does he get free hints? With point buy it's minimum 8th level to get 20 IN. Proficiency is +3, so the 8 IN Not-A-Wizard has a total +2 to Investigation while the Non-Proficient Wizard has a +5. Who gets the free hints?

Not sure what you mean by houserule.

The skill Investigation is the ability to deduce based off of clues. If there is a need for the DM to drop hints, then there's already probably clues being left.

My earlier post was just pointing out that if you're going to see which characters get to deduce things, you should base it off the skill which already covers deduction, not make it a separate thing based solely on the Int score of the character.

pagnabros

2018-03-28, 12:01 PM

Because simply put, most GM never make players roleplay a stupid character :smallannoyed:

DireSickFish

2018-03-28, 03:21 PM

Only Warlocks I've ever seen dump Int are Str-based ones, and even then it's a toss-up with Wis. Otherwise they almost universally dump Str. That includes in AL. From what I can recall. It's been a while.
You can dump more than 1 stat. Heck, you can dump 3 stats. Can't really dump 4 though. At least not with standard point buy.

Tanarii

2018-03-28, 03:23 PM

You can dump more than 1 stat. Heck, you can dump 3 stats. Can't really dump 4 though. At least not with standard point buy.
Good point, at least in regards to AL, which uses the variant Point Buy rule. I still don't recall seeing it though. OTOH it's not like I looked at everyone's character sheet in detail in AL.

I'm so used to Standard Array, which is one of the two defaults, that when I see someone talking about a dump stat I automatically think there can only be one.

Mandragola

2018-03-28, 04:16 PM

Um.... I don't think that it's been a "bunch", I think it's just been me.

And @Mandragola, while you've cited some reasons for folks who are not desperate and bold idiots to adventure, that still doesn't have any bearing on most high INT PC's are played as if they're "brave" (stupid) IME (I'm just not seeing any smart tactics in play by high INT PC's, by and large they don't use cover, and just run into combat without trying to avoid it, get right up to melee range with antagonists assuming success, et cetra. My usually 8 to 10 INT PC is usually the only PC to ttegard getting into melee range a bad idea).

If DM's are to police PC's with below average INT not behaving moronically, are they then going to police high INT PC's that do behave like morons?

Is the next step, "Joe, you're an idiot, you don't get to play a 16 INT PC"?

Frankly seeing the orders that higher in the hierarchy college educated white collar types give actual working people IRL I very much question the wisdom and even the utility of high IQ anyway.
Ok so here's a problem with your argument. You're saying that intelligent people wouldn't be stupid enough to be adventurers - then you go on to say that intelligent people do stupid stuff IRL. Those two points count against each other.

IQ doesn't always correlate with acting sensibly. You could argue that that's the wisdom stat, while Intelligence is more to do with book learning. Whatevs - this is an argument that's always existed in all RPGs.

Ultimately a player needs a reason why their character would go into a career entering dark caves that nobody's walked out of alive before. But they need a reason regardless of what their stats are.

Also I really don't think that brave = stupid. It's way more complicated than that.

2D8HP

2018-03-28, 05:45 PM

Ok so here's a problem with your argument. You're saying that intelligent people wouldn't be stupid enough to be adventurers - then you go on to say that intelligent people do stupid stuff IRL. Those two points count against each other.....

I'll concede that, as except for some cases (a certain Electrician) mostly the harm that IRL people do isn't to themselves but to others (which also applies to a certain Electrician as well), and I'd probably break Forum rules to explain further, suffice it to say, while Robin Hood is my favorite fictional/legendary figure to imitate, I'd much rather play an expat of Howard's Conan putting swords into sorcerers bellies, than LeGuin's Ged becoming Archmage of Earthsea (though I do sympathize with those wanting to take down Conan when he's King of Aquilonia as well).

My next favorite (the Gray Mouser) thinks he's brilliant, but in reading the stories, he actually behaves foolishly, and that's my problem, I lack the imagination of how to play an intelligent hero that would be fun, as either the circumstances that would drive an intelligent person to adventure are too grimdark for my tastes (Moorcock's Corum comes to mind), or they're kinda powerful.

From my perspective, an adventurer is either foolhardy (what I want to play), or desperate/forced by circumstance (what I usually play), or is powerful enough that they feel there's low enough risk (which is boring for me), I just don't imagine a fourth alternative (I'm not saying there isn't, I just don't know what it is).

ZorroGames

2018-03-28, 06:40 PM

I'll concede that, as except for some cases (a certain Electrician) mostly the harm that IRL people do isn't to themselves but to others (which also applies to a certain Electrician as well), and I'd probably break Forum rules to explain further, suffice it to say, while Robin Hood is my favorite fictional/legendary figure to imitate, I'd much rather play an expat of Howard's Conan putting swords into sorcerers bellies, than LeGuin's Ged becoming Archmage of Earthsea (though I do sympathize with those wanting to take down Conan when he's King of Aquilonia as well).

My next favorite (the Gray Mouser) thinks he's brilliant, but in reading the stories, he actually behaves foolishly, and that's my problem, I lack the imagination of how to play an intelligent hero that would be fun, as either the circumstances that would drive an intelligent person to adventure are too grimdark for my tastes (Moorcock's Corum comes to mind), or they're kinda powerful.

From my perspective, an adventurer is either foolhardy (what I want to play), or desperate/forced by circumstance (what I usually play), or is powerful enough that they feel there's low enough risk (which is boring for me), I just don't imagine a fourth alternative (I'm not saying there isn't, I just don't know what it is).

What other (IRL) occupations ask you to risk you life at any given moment voluntarily? Fire Department. Police. Military, my fave model for martial adventurers.

So, a desire to serve and protect?

emduck

2018-03-28, 07:53 PM

Police, fire, and military are the obvious ones, but not necessarily the ones that are actually the most dangerous. Things like logging, mining, oil drilling, deep sea fishing, roofing, metalwork, construction, and even agriculture can be more dangerous. Heck, statistically speaking anything that requires a lot of driving is going to have a high injury rate.

2D8HP

2018-03-28, 08:27 PM

.
What other (IRL) occupations ask you to risk you life at any given moment voluntarily? Fire Department. Police. Military, my fave model for martial adventurers.

So, a desire to serve and protect?

That's a fair point and a good call, as I tend to forget the more modern "mission to save the world" adventures and think of more traditional "loot the dungeon" adventures instead.

My bad.

:redface:

Police, fire, and military are the obvious ones, but not necessarily the ones that are actually the most dangerous. Things like logging, mining, oil drilling, deep sea fishing, roofing, metalwork, construction, and even agriculture can be more dangerous. Heck, statistically speaking anything that requires a lot of driving is going to have a high injury rate.

Yep, Bartenders, and Garbage Collectors are more likely to die on the job than police and fire...

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the_deadliest_jobs_in_america_fatal_injuries_per_1 00000_workers_chartbuilder.png?w=1280

..and in repairing the plumbing at fire and police stations, for the last six years, by and large I hear way more talk of pensions and retirement than serving and protecting (just like most people about their jobs), as for those who served in the military, I've known a small few veterans who joined in wartime because they were patriots (my grandfather for one), most of the older veterans I've worked with did it to stay out of jail, the middle-aged ones joined in peacetime for a job, and I really haven't known if any youngster I've met are veterans, (but I don't know well many youngsters of any kind).

As for myself, I choose the dangerous job of being a construction worker (I've been on a jobsite where a man lost both his arms, known two apprentice plumbers who broke their legs on the job, an air conditioning repair apprentice who permanently lost the ability to walk, and I've been on multiple jobsite that had to call for ambulances) out of fear that living in poverty would cost me my marriage.

Had I been from a privileged "parents support you" background, or had I been smarter I'd have delighted to go to college, sit and read, and get a gravy job instead, so yes, except for extraordinary times, if one is lucky or smart enough to avoid danger I don't grok seeking it.

Tanarii

2018-03-28, 08:59 PM

Adventurers remind me more of many gang-bangers I've known. Prone to invading (ancient and abandoned) homes to take the owner's stuff while they're not around. And sometimes roll creatures for their wad. Basically, anything to avoid boring old work.

2D8HP

2018-03-28, 10:17 PM

Kane0

2018-03-28, 10:38 PM

Indeed, saving the world is a byproduct at best.

The Jack

2018-03-29, 06:10 AM

I never make stories involving saving the world from some world ending cataclysm. It might be because I've never ran a game where I thought people were high enough level, but I think I'm just opposed to the idea. It's like my entire style of DMing was born from learning from the mistakes of other DM's, and I've had some terrible DM's who liked to start their world-saving railroads from level 1. If someone's going to summon X into the world, it'll be at most an unhappy century on the continent before y comes in. I might allow a thousand years of more confined or more bearable darkness, or I might begin the game after world ender was summoned. Even if I'm doing a setting with a lot of magic, I like to ground things. If God X is going to jump into the material world, every other god is going to flip their ****.

That said, I think the amount of loot one can get from dungeon diving is worth the risk, and intelligent fellows with nothing else to live for, or with plenty other things to strive for, is worth it.

ZorroGames

2018-03-29, 07:11 AM

.

That's a fair point and a good call, as I tend to forget the more modern "mission to save the world" adventures and think of more traditional "loot the dungeon" adventures instead.

My bad.

:redface:

Yep, Bartenders, and Garbage Collectors are more likely to die on the job than police and fire...

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the_deadliest_jobs_in_america_fatal_injuries_per_1 00000_workers_chartbuilder.png?w=1280

..and in repairing the plumbing at fire and police stations, for the last six years, by and large I hear way more talk of pensions and retirement than serving and protecting (just like most people about their jobs), as for those who served in the military, I've known a small few veterans who joined in wartime because they were patriots (my grandfather for one), most of the older veterans I've worked with did it to stay out of jail, the middle-aged ones joined in peacetime for a job, and I really haven't known if any youngster I've met are veterans, (but I don't know well many youngsters of any kind).

As for myself, I choose the dangerous job of being a construction worker (I've been on a jobsite where a man lost both his arms, known two apprentice plumbers who broke their legs on the job, an air conditioning repair apprentice who permanently lost the ability to walk, and I've been on multiple jobsite that had to call for ambulances) out of fear that living in poverty would cost me my marriage.

Had I been from a privileged "parents support you" background, or had I been smarter I'd have delighted to go to college, sit and read, and get a gravy job instead, so yes, except for extraordinary times, if one is lucky or smart enough to avoid danger I don't grok seeking it.

Lots of reasons to be an adventurer.

Most of My Mountain Dwarf characters have more than just plunder on their agendas though feeding oneself does require GPs.

Aside from the few with Greed as their driver I tend to use the backgrounds, write a paragraph on how they became an adventurer for my own reminder of why he/she became an adventurer, and - since they are in AL games what Dwarf Citadel/city/mine they grew up in. That last sets a lot of RP for my characters. An dwarf from Citadel Feldbarr is going to very different from a dwarf from Ironmaster in motives and attitudes.