"I'm glad these giants are roleplaying their 8 int"

[Snowbluff]

In Deadstone Cleft where Stone Giants use Meld into Stone and other tricks to ambush the party.
Me: "It's 10, and I don't like when my players read the stat blocks."
Player: "But their supposed to be stupid right?"
Me: "What are your intelligence scores again?"
*sheepish mumbling of "10" and "8" from the party*
Player: "Uh, I have a 20 in a mental stat."
Me: "So to make this clear, when you guys move onto the next level of giant, which will be smarter, you guys will be dumber than the average monster?"
Players: "Yeah, probably."


While we're here, I question the evolutionary viability of Piercers. They fall on things with a poor chances of success as their only attack, and when they miss they take a large amount of damage.

[Snails]

Me: "So to make this clear, when you guys move onto the next level of giant, which will be smarter, you guys will be dumber than the average monster?"
Players: "Yeah, probably."

Maybe they are telling the truth? :smalleek:



While we're here, I question the evolutionary viability of Piercers. They fall on things with a poor chances of success as their only attack, and when they miss they take a large amount of damage.

On our Material Plane they cannot make lethal flying upwards stalagmite attacks, unlike their native plane. Obviously.

[kraitmarais]

In Deadstone Cleft where Stone Giants use Meld into Stone and other tricks to ambush the party.
Me: "It's 10, and I don't like when my players read the stat blocks."
Player: "But their supposed to be stupid right?"
Me: "What are your intelligence scores again?"
*sheepish mumbling of "10" and "8" from the party*
Player: "Uh, I have a 20 in a mental stat."
Me: "So to make this clear, when you guys move onto the next level of giant, which will be smarter, you guys will be dumber than the average monster?"
Players: "Yeah, probably."


:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:



While we're here, I question the evolutionary viability of Piercers. They fall on things with a poor chances of success as their only attack, and when they miss they take a large amount of damage.

I used piercers once, and thought, "Wow, I wasn't expecting much and I'm still disappointed." And then the players are going to want to know the exact location of every dang stalagmite for the rest of the cavern.

[Mith]

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:



I used piercers once, and thought, "Wow, I wasn't expecting much and I'm still disappointed." And then the players are going to want to know the exact location of every dang stalagmite for the rest of the cavern.

I would treat Piercers as baby Ropers, so they are weaker, but then pair them up with a Roper for more effectiveness.

This gives the amusing thought of an adolescent beast that uses it's appendages like a bungee cord.

[Droodicus]

Even if they were dumber than that they are still predatory.
Most animals have baaaad intelligence scores yet tigers still ambush and lions work together.

[Laserlight]

Once, long ago, a giant rolled a 20 on his "Have an idea on how to set up an ambush" check. That group of giants survived. and they've done it that way ever since.

[Unoriginal]

Even with 5 INT, Hill Giants know, among other things, the value of using armor when at war, how to protect their settlements with walls, and that killing a prey with a thrown rock before they notice the danger is better than just roaring and charging. They also train in unarmed combat and are pretty decently good at it, so that they can do something if they lose their clubs

With INT 7, your average Lizardfolk is still a great hunter and ambusher, especially in a swamp.

People tend to overestimate how dumb an INT score makes you.

Now, don't get me wrong, your typical Hill Giant and Lizardfolk is uneducated, not very good at deducing stuff, and altogether not bright, but that doesn't make them unable to use tactics or to know how to protect the place they live in.

[KorvinStarmast]

While we're here, I question the evolutionary viability of Piercers. They fall on things with a poor chances of success as their only attack, and when they miss they take a large amount of damage. As we read in the Monster Manual, a piercer is a baby Roper.

[Specter]

The only players who complain about a DM 'oversmarting' their NPCs are those who can't think of tactics themselves, and find their buuts kicked repeatedly by something that is (on paper) dumber than they are.

[Segev]

The only players who complain about a DM 'oversmarting' their NPCs are those who can't think of tactics themselves, and find their buuts kicked repeatedly by something that is (on paper) dumber than they are.

It may, perhaps, be a valid complaint, even so. If their PCs are supposed to be better at tactics, maybe the DM should help them out a bit.

[darknite]

The 8 Int in the Giant's stat block is simply representational. It's like saying all humans have an 11 in each stat. Perhaps today's the day the PCs have run into the occasional Int 10 or even (gasp!) Int 12 specimen? Tell them to not sweat the meta and engage with what's presented to them.

[Mith]

As we read in the Monster Manual, a piercer is a baby Roper.

Boy do I feel dumb.

[Banaticus]

Pretty much every animal can a) hunt in packs, b) ambush, c) retreat, hide, and possibly attack again, d) I like lists. And every DnD animal has an Int of 4 or lower, I believe.

Point is, if animals with Ints of 1-4 can be smart hunters, so can giants with Ints of 8. An 8 Int isn't stupid, it just means they're going to have some problems learning algebra.

[GlenSmash!]

Even if they were dumber than that they are still predatory.
Most animals have baaaad intelligence scores yet tigers still ambush and lions work together.

This. Lumping effectiveness in with Intelligence doesn't make too much sense.

It does not take a genius to know it is better to sneak up on than be sneaked upon.

[Cynthaer]

D&D players frequently get some weird ideas of what "high Int" or "low Int" should mean for a character. I think part of it is because they tend to skew young and academically "gifted", and travel in STEM circles.

I know from personal experience that all three of these things tend to give someone the perception that you really can estimate someone's overall "raw brainpower" as a sliding scale with a single axis. When you're still in school, you read fast, you're good at Magic: the Gathering, and you absorb math and science class materials quickly, it sure feels that way.

In reality, of course, that's nonsense. D&D Int checks cover "logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning", which is actually a staggeringly broad (albeit intuitive) group of traits. In real life, there are plenty of brilliant kids with no access to a proper education, people who are great at working out complex systems but who have abysmal memories, people with perfectly average "intelligence" who become experts in their respective fields.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that in adulthood, competence and knowledge in specific areas diverges wildly as people start to pick up decades of experience that others don't have. The specific knowledge sets of a career diplomat, a game designer, a microchip designer, a plumber, a patent lawyer, and a nurse are going to be deep and largely non-overlapping, no matter what the hypothetical "baseline intelligence" of each one is.

My point is, I almost (almost!) don't care how low someone's Int score is—it's usually reasonable for them to be an expert in something they or their culture spend all their time doing. An 8 in Int is nowhere near the point where complex combat tactics would seem odd.

[Thrudd]

It may, perhaps, be a valid complaint, even so. If their PCs are supposed to be better at tactics, maybe the DM should help them out a bit.

Nope. That defeats the whole point of the game. Having a higher intelligence score does not equal "will win the combat." Of course, if you know your players aren't great at tactics yet, you might go a bit easy on them and give them some teaching moments until they improve. But not because of their ability scores, because it's a game and it takes time to learn and improve skills, and it's no fun to always lose.

[Ralanr]

Even with 5 INT, Hill Giants know, among other things, the value of using armor when at war, how to protect their settlements with walls, and that killing a prey with a thrown rock before they notice the danger is better than just roaring and charging. They also train in unarmed combat and are pretty decently good at it, so that they can do something if they lose their clubs

With INT 7, your average Lizardfolk is still a great hunter and ambusher, especially in a swamp.

People tend to overestimate how dumb an INT score makes you.

Now, don't get me wrong, your typical Hill Giant and Lizardfolk is uneducated, not very good at deducing stuff, and altogether not bright, but that doesn't make them unable to use tactics or to know how to protect the place they live in.

I see this often in players with their own int scores. A lot of time people don't want an 8 in INT because they are worried they need to sound dumb.

[darknite]

I see this often in players with their own int scores. A lot of time people don't want an 8 in INT because they are worried they need to sound dumb.

My personal rule is that I won't play an Int of less than 10 unless I specifically intend the PC to be dumb and will play them that way.

On the opposite side of the scale I rarely see DMs give a PC with an Int of 22 much leeway with regard to their innate reasoning skills.

[Angelalex242]

Well, I think the general perception of it is, Int 8 means you're Forrest Gump. Int 10 means you're the kid who got Cs in school.

[Unoriginal]

Well, I think the general perception of it is, Int 8 means you're Forrest Gump. Int 10 means you're the kid who got Cs in school.

I don't think it's the general perception, and it's not accurate.

10 is square the average, 8 is the lower end of average.

[holywhippet]

Keep in mind that intelligence is best regarded as a curve and not a line. Having 16 intelligence doesn't exactly mean you are twice as smart as someone with 8 intelligence. 10 is about average - you can have it an be a normal, productive member of society. Someone with 8 can as well, but generally aren't going to be in a supervisory role - they will be a grunt rather than a leader unless it is a job that doesn't require too much thinking. An adventurer can get away with 8 intelligence because they can use the simple logic of hit monster with weapon until they are no longer a threat.

[Snails]

D&D players frequently get some weird ideas of what "high Int" or "low Int" should mean for a character. I think part of it is because they tend to skew young and academically "gifted", and travel in STEM circles.

What you said. It is just a variant of what I like to call the Ender Wiggins Theory of Intelligence, that assumes 20-30 IQ extra points makes you a superior form of life in all ways.


My point is, I almost (almost!) don't care how low someone's Int score is—it's usually reasonable for them to be an expert in something they or their culture spend all their time doing. An 8 in Int is nowhere near the point where complex combat tactics would seem odd.

Indeed. Even a Int 5 giant can probably handle quite complex tactics. They just cannot learn such tactics quickly or handle/devise changes on the fly. It only takes one giant with the patience to think through how to defend their home turf once, to get the essentials of a good plan spread to the whole clan for a long time.

[MaxWilson]

An adventurer can get away with 8 intelligence because they can use the simple logic of hit monster with weapon until they are no longer a threat.

That approach works great until it doesn't. :-P And then the adventurer ceases to be a threat to the monsters, ever again.

[Tanarii]

Combat tactics are unrelated to an Int score, except insofar as Intelligence checks provide better information with which to make decisions regarding them.

Not many DMs include checks like that. But some do. As indirect as a Lore or investigation check providing some crucial nugget of information, to as direct as re-inventing & importing Monster knowledge checks from previous editions.

[mgshamster]

One thing I like to do with low Int is say they're intelligent enough in an extremely limited application, and the opposite in practically every other instance.

For example, an ogre may be intelligent enough to wear armor, use weapons, cook their food, know where to hunt, etc. But they won't philosophize, they're unable to understand why others find them repugnant or even fight them, they have little to no concept of history (their own, much less anyone else's), etc...

Think of a large predatory animal - lions fight in packs, can learn new tactics to hunt animals (even "solitary" cheetahs will band together to hunt a dangerous giraffe). Yet they have no concept of human history, nor do they care about geography or economics or climate. They may or may not know to avoid da geroys areas, like human settlements, but there are instances of panthers surviving in cities for decades without ever being spotted by a human (true story of an escaped zoo panther in a large city in India).

Low mental stat doesn't mean pathetic in every aspect of mental abilities. Especially so if their other mental stats aren't low (and in that case, I like to average out all their mental stats to get an "average" mental ability with strengths and weaknesses based on relative scores).

[MaxWilson]

Combat tactics are unrelated to an Int score, except insofar as Intelligence checks provide better information with which to make decisions regarding them.

Combat tactics aren't really unrelated to Int score, but simplistic combat tactics like "set an ambush" are feasible for even a low Int like 8.

Doing proper threat assessment (and understanding things like Lanchester's Squared Law of combat) requires higher Int, but then, if monsters did good threat assessments then your typical hack-and-slash game's outcome would be either boring or short: most monsters would surrender right away to PCs, or flee. A few monsters would gather up enough buddies to stomp the PCs flat and then come back and do it. (This might be as simple as combining two or three encounters' worth of monsters into one, instead of letting themselves be defeated in detail.)

Hack-and-slash gaming requires wave after wave of monsters who are willing to charge into the meatgrinder of PC spells and weaponry despite being hopelessly outgunned. You don't want smart monsters in this case.

[Angelalex242]

I don't think it's the general perception, and it's not accurate.

10 is square the average, 8 is the lower end of average.

And C is average in school. Hence 'got Cs in school.'

[2D8HP]

D&D players frequently get some weird ideas of what "high Int" or "low Int" should mean for a character. I think part of it is because they tend to skew young and academically "gifted", and travel in STEM circles.

I know from personal experience that all three of these things tend to give someone the perception that you really can estimate someone's overall "raw brainpower" as a sliding scale with a single axis. When you're still in school, you read fast, you're good at Magic: the Gathering, and you absorb math and science class materials quickly, it sure feels that way.

In reality, of course, that's nonsense. D&D Int checks cover "logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning", which is actually a staggeringly broad (albeit intuitive) group of traits. In real life, there are plenty of brilliant kids with no access to a proper education, people who are great at working out complex systems but who have abysmal memories, people with perfectly average "intelligence" who become experts in their respective fields.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that in adulthood, competence and knowledge in specific areas diverges wildly as people start to pick up decades of experience that others don't have. The specific knowledge sets of a career diplomat, a game designer, a microchip designer, a plumber, a patent lawyer, and a nurse are going to be deep and largely non-overlapping, no matter what the hypothetical "baseline intelligence" of each one is.

My point is, I almost (almost!) don't care how low someone's Int score is—it's usually reasonable for them to be an expert in something they or their culture spend all their time doing. An 8 in Int is nowhere near the point where complex combat tactics would seem odd.
Just Awesome!

May I quoted that for everytime someone starts another "How dare someone only have an 8 INT!" thread (which really isn't that low).

[JoeJ]

Would you be okay having wolves coordinate their attacks, pick out weak opponents to concentrate on, spend considerable time observing and evaluating a potential target before attacking, and altering their tactics depending on the weather and environment? In real life, wolves do all those things, and the Monster Manual gives them an intelligence score of 3. Giants with intelligence 8 should have no trouble at all using intelligent tactics.

[Tanarii]

Combat tactics aren't really unrelated to Int score, but simplistic combat tactics like "set an ambush" are feasible for even a low Int like 8.

Doing proper threat assessment (and understanding things like Lanchester's Squared Law of combat) requires higher Int, but then, if monsters did good threat assessments then your typical hack-and-slash game's outcome would be either boring or short: most monsters would surrender right away to PCs, or flee. A few monsters would gather up enough buddies to stomp the PCs flat and then come back and do it. (This might be as simple as combining two or three encounters' worth of monsters into one, instead of letting themselves be defeated in detail.)Unless the DM requires an Int check of some kind to provide information, or otherwise gives information based on int score somehow, or either player or DM intentionally gates actions based on an Int check or Int score ... tactics are not based on PC or monster Int. They are based on the players or DMs decisions.

That's what Int checks are for. Things based on Int. If there is no Int check or anything else involving Int, then it's not based on Int. By definition.

[Unoriginal]

One thing I like to do with low Int is say they're intelligent enough in an extremely limited application, and the opposite in practically every other instance.

For example, an ogre may be intelligent enough to wear armor, use weapons, cook their food, know where to hunt, etc. But they won't philosophize, they're unable to understand why others find them repugnant or even fight them, they have little to no concept of history (their own, much less anyone else's), etc...

Just to say, the Ogres as described in the MM know why people find them repugnant or want to fight them: because the Ogres are attacking people, taking their stuff, and probably eating them. They're dumb, but they know that people react with hostility to that kind of things (as the Ogres would react like that too if attacked).



Think of a large predatory animal - lions fight in packs, can learn new tactics to hunt animals (even "solitary" cheetahs will band together to hunt a dangerous giraffe). Yet they have no concept of human history, nor do they care about geography or economics or climate. They may or may not know to avoid da geroys areas, like human settlements, but there are instances of panthers surviving in cities for decades without ever being spotted by a human (true story of an escaped zoo panther in a large city in India).

True. Heck, some creatures have INT scores higher than most animals without even being sapient.

[mgshamster]

Just to say, the Ogres as described in the MM know why people find them repugnant or want to fight them: because the Ogres are attacking people, taking their stuff, and probably eating them. They're dumb, but they know that people react with hostility to that kind of things (as the Ogres would react like that too if attacked).


Good point. When I wrote that, I wasn't thinking of just 5e ogres, but more of orgres in general from multiple sources including literature.

Ogres are also a lot smarter than what I gave them credit for. So perhaps use my example with a sapient monster that has an Int of 4 or 5.

[Unoriginal]

Good point. When I wrote that, I wasn't thinking of just 5e ogres, but more of orgres in general from multiple sources including literature.

Fair.



Ogres are also a lot smarter than what I gave them credit for. So perhaps use my example with a sapient monster that has an Int of 4 or 5.

5e Ogres have an INT of 5, though.

[mgshamster]

Fair.

5e Ogres have an INT of 5, though.

Why the heck did I think they were 8?!

I blame lack of coffee. Anyways, you get the gist. :)

[Segev]

Nope. That defeats the whole point of the game. Having a higher intelligence score does not equal "will win the combat." Of course, if you know your players aren't great at tactics yet, you might go a bit easy on them and give them some teaching moments until they improve. But not because of their ability scores, because it's a game and it takes time to learn and improve skills, and it's no fun to always lose.

I never said having higher int - or even better tactical knowledge - guarantees victory. I said, if the players are playing PCs who should know better than to use the idiotic tactics the players think are "clever," it behooves the DM to actually give them advice. Not to "go easy" on them, but to explain why the tactics are not good, and give suggestions.

This gets into the same territory as the social side of the game: do stats that reflect mental capacity of PCs actually mean anything, or are players playing characters exactly as smart and knowledgeable as the players, themselves, at all times?

[Tanarii]

This gets into the same territory as the social side of the game: do stats that reflect mental capacity of PCs actually mean anything, or are players playing characters exactly as smart and knowledgeable as the players, themselves, at all times?Mental stats are always meaningful. They affect the information the player can gather to make decisions. This implicitly seems to be the 'default' method for 5e, where decision making is left in the hands of the players, or 'player skill' if you will. And attributes affect 'player skill' by affecting input via rolls, or output via rolls.

Or, if DM and players prefer, they can gate decisions based on stats themselves without any checks, and call it 'roleplaying' their stats. But it's not inherent in the system. Ability checks seemed to be designed to surround player decision making, and thus affect it, but indirectly. Not directly constrain it or remove it or replace it.

Which is what I meant when I posted earlier: if the Intelligence score isn't involved in tactics in any way, tactics aren't related to Intelligence. You can choose to bring it into play by using it to gate decisions you make ("I'm not smart enough I'd think of this") if you want, thus making a link between tactics and Intelligence score. But the system doesn't require it, and if the DM doesn't involve an Int check to provide information used to form tactics, or prescribe certain actions (gate the actions), it's not Int related.

[ubergeek63]

do you guys have ANY clue how the bell curve works?

Over 50% of the human population is between 8 & 12. You are talking about the difference between algebra and calculus comprehension not between a conversation and a drooling imbecile.

The 8 INT bog standard giant is only slightly below the 10 INT bog standard human

[ZorroGames]

do you guys have ANY clue how the bell curve works?

Over 50% of the human population is between 8 & 12. You are talking about the difference between algebra and calculus comprehension not between a conversation and a drooling imbecile.

The 8 INT bog standard giant is only slightly below the 10 INT bog standard human

IRL your comment on the bell curve is correct but remember this is a game and encyopedic knowledge of Players, PCs, DMs, and statblock does not guarantee a proper application (at least on he Players and DMs part.)

[Unoriginal]

do you guys have ANY clue how the bell curve works?

Over 50% of the human population is between 8 & 12. You are talking about the difference between algebra and calculus comprehension not between a conversation and a drooling imbecile.

The 8 INT bog standard giant is only slightly below the 10 INT bog standard human

If you had read the thread, you'd know that yes, we have clues on how it works.

[Kadesh]

do you guys have ANY clue how the bell curve works?

Over 50% of the human population is between 8 & 12. You are talking about the difference between algebra and calculus comprehension not between a conversation and a drooling imbecile.

The 8 INT bog standard giant is only slightly below the 10 INT bog standard human

At least I can tell when a thread is dead. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice.

[Pex]

I just play my character. On the rare :smallyuk: occasion I say something the party thinks is dumb or offer an idea that won't work, but I was serious in intent, I point to my character sheet and say "8 Intelligence" with a smile.

[ubergeek63]

IRL your comment on the bell curve is correct but remember this is a game and encyopedic knowledge of Players, PCs, DMs, and statblock does not guarantee a proper application (at least on he Players and DMs part.)

actually it is correct in D&D as well: adventurers, by definition, are exceptional. Players being on the high side of the curve do not make giants mentally handicapped. "roleplaying their 8 int" means they should be played as if they are incredibly strong, MALIGNED commoners, not babbling buffoons like the orange **** stain in the oval office.

8 INT in the stat block implies 3d6-2 min 3. Most DMs just use the stat block, realistic ones will roll the leaders as PCs, and OCD ones, like mine, roll them all

[Beelzebubba]

Combat tactics aren't really unrelated to Int score, but simplistic combat tactics like "set an ambush" are feasible for even a low Int like 8.

Look up a net-casting spider. Deinopidae. If it can ambush, almost anything can.

Int 8 IMO means they don't adapt well when the party does something outside their experience.

[Neknoh]

A note we are foregoing in the discussion: Wisdom, which is perception and insight.


A character may be low in int (the typical 8 int fighter) but above average in wisdom (12 or 14 is fairly typical), perhaps the character cannot formulate a multi faceted plan, but people seem to be wanting to take away "adjust on the fly" and "intimate understanding of aspects the character's life" from them.

Low int does not automatically mean "hit tings wif club, dey crack, I win", it can just as well mean somebody that is a successful mercenary or duelist but can't do lots of mental deductions normally assumed to be done by smart people (Sherlock holmesing for instance).

A decent wisdom can still make for a good tactician, as long as the tactics are based in "what have I been through or what would I do" rather than "Waka Zulu did the bullhorn manouvre, it works like this and this"

Sure, int 8 can also be played for comedy, Grogg from Critical Role being the fairly typical int 8 muscle dude, but were I to stat MCU-Thor, I would probably put him at int 8 as well, at least in DnD terms.

[Unoriginal]

8 IS average. The low end of average, but average still.

[ubergeek63]

A note we are foregoing in the discussion: Wisdom, which is perception and insight.
A decent wisdom can still make for a good tactician, as long as the tactics are based in "what have I been through or what would I do" rather than "Waka Zulu did the bullhorn manouvre, it works like this and this"

Sure, int 8 can also be played for comedy, Grogg from Critical Role being the fairly typical int 8 muscle dude, but were I to stat MCU-Thor, I would probably put him at int 8 as well, at least in DnD terms.

actually the tangerine rabbit dropping probably rates a 7 INT at best and he is well beyond the "grogg smash" level of vocabulary ... int 8 is still among the center 50% of the population and should not be played out as comedic. at worst that is bimbo cheerleader caliber and not blond ditz.

[Unoriginal]

Also Grog has 6 in INT, and Thor from MCU is a very well educated and knowledgeable individual with a more than decent intellect.

He's somewhat of a fool, not a moron.

[ubergeek63]

Also Grog has 6 in INT, and Thor from MCU is a very well educated and knowledgeable individual with a more than decent intellect.

He's somewhat of a fool, not a moron.

Thor, as a GOD, has had millennia to become educated and knowledgeable. While certainly not the intent, with that kind of time to work with even a moron can become fairly knowledgeable if single minded.

[Unoriginal]

Thor, as a GOD, has had millennia to become educated and knowledgeable. While certainly not the intent, with that kind of time to work with even a moron can become fairly knowledgeable if single minded.

Which has no impact on the fact that MCU Thor is not a moron.

Which in turn has no bearing over what a INT 8 character is like.

[Angelalex242]

Which has no impact on the fact that MCU Thor is not a moron.

Which in turn has no bearing over what a INT 8 character is like.

Also, Thor, being a god, well, his WORST stat is 20+. Most of his stats are in the mid 20s, and his STR is 30 (cause if a silly PC using a Hammer of Thunderbolts is about garunteed a str of 30, Thor certainly has it! And should probably have more)

By god standards, Int 20 is 'average', int 18 is 'below average' and int 22 is 'above average.' Int 30 means you're the god of wizards.

[ubergeek63]

Also, Thor, being a god, well, his WORST stat is 20+. Most of his stats are in the mid 20s, and his STR is 30 (cause if a silly PC using a Hammer of Thunderbolts is about garunteed a str of 30, Thor certainly has it! And should probably have more)

By god standards, Int 20 is 'average', int 18 is 'below average' and int 22 is 'above average.' Int 30 means you're the god of wizards.

I never said he was: some one ELSE brought thor into the comparison. I was merely making the observation that given that kind of time most could become educated.

[Unoriginal]

I never said he was: some one ELSE brought thor into the comparison. I was merely making the observation that given that kind of time most could become educated.

5e Intelligence also includes education.

[ubergeek63]

5e Intelligence also includes education.

what that means is that sitting and reading in a library increases INT... not that many would do that or that it is really intended but it is what the statement means: the more you read the smarter you get.

likely the INTENT is more along the lines of rolling knowledge checks about things not specifically encountered yet

[JoeJ]

what that means is that sitting and reading in a library increases INT... not that many would do that or that it is really intended but it is what the statement means: the more you read the smarter you get.

Yes it does. Most PCs, however, increase their INT (if that's what the player chooses to increase) by going out and learning about the world through experience. They could have obtained the same result studying in a library, but who would want to roleplay that?

[ubergeek63]

Yes it does. Most PCs, however, increase their INT (if that's what the player chooses to increase) by going out and learning about the world through experience. They could have obtained the same result studying in a library, but who would want to roleplay that?

it is called "down time": you do not RP it.

[Tanarii]

what that means is that sitting and reading in a library increases INT... not that many would do that or that it is really intended but it is what the statement means: the more you read the smarter you get.Adventures (usually Wizards, EK, and ATs) get more Int by going out and adventuring and gaining ASIs. Not sitting in libraries reading books.


likely the INTENT is more along the lines of rolling knowledge checks about things not specifically encountered yetIf your character cannot possibly know something. it means automatic failure. Not an Int (Lore) check.

[JoeJ]

it is called "down time": you do not RP it.

That's my point. Players want adventure, so they play adventurous characters. Characters who stay home and never do anything dangerous can increase their INT also, but they aren't player characters so there don't need to be specific rules for it.

[ubergeek63]

That's my point. Players want adventure, so they play adventurous characters. Characters who stay home and never do anything dangerous can increase their INT also, but they aren't player characters so there don't need to be specific rules for it.

{scrubbed}

[Unoriginal]

{scrubbed}

One, insulting other forum goers (using a term referring to crossdressing in a derogatory manner) is against the forum rules. I advise you to edit it.

Two, it's been several times now that you're assuming that everyone but you play the same. Needless to say, we don't, and generalized statements about what "we" do are meaningless and inaccurate.

Three, it's funny to see you complain about others not reading posts, because your first post in this thread showed how you didn't read the other posts.

Four, you're apparently imagining that your playstyle is unique and that no one here also has a reactive world. Even PUBLISHED MODULES are reactive, ubergeek63. You can't go in the Against the Giants' first stronghold, kill one giant, then leave and come back the next day without the NPCs having reacted to that in the appropriate manner for their understanding of the situation.

Five, "theater of the mind" refers to playing without a battlemap, aka you're imaginging the fight instead of moving little figures on a tabletop. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your complain.

[ubergeek63]

One, insulting other forum goers (using a term referring to crossdressing in a derogatory manner) is against the forum rules. I advise you to edit it.

Two, it's been several times now that you're assuming that everyone but you play the same. Needless to say, we don't, and generalized statements about what "we" do are meaningless and inaccurate.

Three, it's funny to see you complain about others not reading posts, because your first post in this thread showed how you didn't read the other posts.

Four, you're apparently imagining that your playstyle is unique and that no one here also has a reactive world. Even PUBLISHED MODULES are reactive, ubergeek63. You can't go in the Against the Giants' first stronghold, kill one giant, then leave and come back the next day without the NPCs having reacted to that in the appropriate manner for their understanding of the situation.

Five, "theater of the mind" refers to playing without a battlemap, aka you're imaginging the fight instead of moving little figures on a tabletop. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your complain.

{scrubbed}

[ashmanonar]

Even with 5 INT, Hill Giants know, among other things, the value of using armor when at war, how to protect their settlements with walls, and that killing a prey with a thrown rock before they notice the danger is better than just roaring and charging. They also train in unarmed combat and are pretty decently good at it, so that they can do something if they lose their clubs

With INT 7, your average Lizardfolk is still a great hunter and ambusher, especially in a swamp.

People tend to overestimate how dumb an INT score makes you.

Now, don't get me wrong, your typical Hill Giant and Lizardfolk is uneducated, not very good at deducing stuff, and altogether not bright, but that doesn't make them unable to use tactics or to know how to protect the place they live in.

If I recall correctly, Survival is normally used to set ambushes/traps anyways, and that's a Wisdom skill.

[ashmanonar]

A note we are foregoing in the discussion: Wisdom, which is perception and insight.


A character may be low in int (the typical 8 int fighter) but above average in wisdom (12 or 14 is fairly typical), perhaps the character cannot formulate a multi faceted plan, but people seem to be wanting to take away "adjust on the fly" and "intimate understanding of aspects the character's life" from them.

Low int does not automatically mean "hit tings wif club, dey crack, I win", it can just as well mean somebody that is a successful mercenary or duelist but can't do lots of mental deductions normally assumed to be done by smart people (Sherlock holmesing for instance).

A decent wisdom can still make for a good tactician, as long as the tactics are based in "what have I been through or what would I do" rather than "Waka Zulu did the bullhorn manouvre, it works like this and this"

Sure, int 8 can also be played for comedy, Grogg from Critical Role being the fairly typical int 8 muscle dude, but were I to stat MCU-Thor, I would probably put him at int 8 as well, at least in DnD terms.

Grogg was INT 6, if I recall correctly. That is a bit dull, but he definitely played it up for laughs - points to them for roleplaying things hardcore.

Thor...it's difficult to say with Thor. He's not the most controlled person, so actually I'd say he's probably lower Wis than Int. He has impulse control issues, does all the way through his arc. He is able to explain Yggdrasil and the basics of cosmology to Jane Foster in the first movie, though, and clearly understands it on a level she takes some time to grokk.

[JoeJ]

{scrubbed}

Rudeness doesn't help your argument. Especially since you seem to just be agreeing with me about not playing out the dull parts.

[Kadesh]

Grogg was INT 6, if I recall correctly. That is a bit dull, but he definitely played it up for laughs - points to them for roleplaying things hardcore.
The irony was when he came up with some legitimate tactics that might have worked, but they decided to ignore him because of his low intelligence.