I'm surrounded by idiots!

[HappyDaze]

Optimization is a thing in 5e D&D. I get it. As part of that optimization, there are going to be dump stats. I get that too. Not all dump stats are going to be equal, and that's starting to bug me...

I'm looking at running a Ravnica-based game where there is going to be a lot of intrigue and politics along with the killing and robbing.

But...

The five PCs all have Intelligence scores of 8. Naturally, there's not a Wizard among them, but they have a Cleric, a Paladin, a Sorcerer, a Rogue, and a Fighter. They can probably do just fine in the combat areas, but they have woefully little in the knowledge type skills and all of them are of below average intellect. I don't think that this is all that unusual in a typical campaign for dungeon-delvers, but I have to wonder if this is just a sign that I should not bother too much with the intrigue and politics side I had planned.

[Cerefel]

Did you tell your players in advance that it was going to be an intrigue/politics focused game rather than a combat focused one?

[jdolch]

I would talk to them about the nature of the campaign and give them a little preview of things to come. I bet at least some of them will switch priorities when they learn that this is gonna be a political campaign. On the other hand you might have a riot on your hands if the players all want to go full murder hobo, but that is something that you should know and talk about before the campaign starts as well.

The Problem probably isn't even the low INT scores. My guess is that the Characters aren't build for a political Intrigue Campaign. Intelligence is really useless for most Characters, but they will probably need a Social Engineer/Face, a very good Thief, maybe a Skilled Assassin, a "Think Tank" Character (this would probably be a high INT Wizard) and some muscle that are not crude Berserker Barbarians, but rather cunning Fighter Types that can go into the Palace as a Bodyguard etc. (The Combat part of this whole team can really be accomplished by many classes though)

[Mjolnirbear]

From my understanding, 8 is just slightly lower than average IQ. If my understanding is correct, then they are not idiots. {Scrubbed}
I dislike that Intelligence serves no useful purpose unless you are a wizard. I've tried a few things, but at the moment in my games you get a free tool proficiency for every positive bonus.

[LichPlease]

It could end up being really fun and silly like a comedic mystery where the PCs are completely clueless as to what is going on but somehow manage to put the pieces together or at least accidentally help. Think The Big Lebowski or Dumb and Dumber.

[Kane0]

Or they get led around by the nose by all the smarter NPCs until someone slips up

[lunaticfringe]

So they aren't book smart and probably won't be disarming an Izzet doomsday device anytime soon. Doesn't mean they're drooling idiots that need to wear velcro.

Also the stereotype is most politicians were poor to mediocre students so that shouldn't hold them back.

[Lunali]

Low int chars can still be devious and manipulative, they're just lacking in education.

[Unoriginal]

I dislike that Intelligence serves no useful purpose unless you are a wizard.

"Being able to recall info and discovering secret stuff isn't useful."


Low int chars can still be devious and manipulative, they're just lacking in education.

And are bad at investigating.


So they aren't book smart and probably won't be disarming an Izzet doomsday device anytime soon. Doesn't mean they're drooling idiots that need to wear velcro.

8 INT is the lower end of the average curve. So this is true.


Doesn't mean the geniuses won't run circles around them

[Drakkoniss]

It is indeed reasonable to ask whether or not you have communicated to your players the nature of the campaign you intend to run. The setting itself should set off some alarm bells, if any of them have a wider knowledge of Wizards of the Coast's properties.

That said: one should additionally question whether or not they have other mental statistics. Wisdom and Charisma will be equally important in this sort of campaign, and honestly... in Ravnica, not all guilds have an affinity for those of a more refined cognitive capacity, if you get my drift. The campaign could go any number of ways, depending on who the party chooses to side with, and what madness will naturally ensue with the complexity of that world throwing around spanners every way as if they actually had no interest in the gears grinding away properly at all (though I exaggerate).

My advice is this: Ensure that your players know what they are getting into, and be willing to share quite a bit about the lore of the plane they have found themselves in, especially if they are not travelers from another realm. Furthermore, be willing to compromise your own plans with whatever hijinks they decide to pursue. Like in war, initial plans in a D&D campaign never survive completely intact, outside the drawing room.

[Gastronomie]

This is more something of an issue with 5e itself rather than with your players. If no one wants to play a wizard at an optimized table, almost no one will ever try to be smart (apart from maybe Arcane Tricksters, but that's it. EKs have no need for INT really).

One way could be to allow using other stats for rolling skills. If you're in the middle of a city and it's not during combat, maybe you can roll Arcana using CHA, the fluff for it being that you're politely asking someone smarter than you what he knows about the problem.

[HappyDaze]

"Being able to recall info and discovering secret stuff isn't useful."



And are bad at investigating.



8 INT is the lower end of the average curve. So this is true.


Doesn't mean the geniuses won't run circles around them

I'm very aware that Int 8 is only "low-average" but it is also as low as Standard Array PCs can go. The think that bugs me is that all of them chose to dump the same stat.

I did make the "combat won't be everything" point very clear, but they don't seem too concerned. They "know" that failed knowledge (Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion) checks "shouldn't block success" the way losses in combat can. In effect, it's metagaming character creation. The point about not recalling information and being bad at investigating (and Investigation) are going to hurt... unless I change my plans and go away from such themes in the campaign.

[Kane0]

DMG Honor :smallamused:

[HappyDaze]

DMG Honor :smallamused:

Can you explain what you mean?

[Kane0]

An alternative method of navigating tricky social situations. Intellect is only one method of interaction, you can also rely on intuition (wisdom), presence (charisma) and/or reputation (honor).

[Corran]

Low int chars can still be devious and manipulative, they're just lacking in education.
+1. I'd be more worried if everyone turned up with low wisdom or charisma or if there was a severe lack in proficiency of social skills. Knowledge skills and (INT-based) investigation can sometimes be circumvented by just asking the right people. It will hurt not having access (if your require of them proficiency in order to allow them to roll) or at least a good bonus to such skills for sure, but it's not the end of the world. That said, I am annoyed too, though about how little incentive the game gives you to invest in intelligence.

[HappyDaze]

An alternative method of navigating tricky social situations. Intellect is only one method of interaction, you can also rely on intuition (wisdom), presence (charisma) and/or reputation (honor).

Well all of those were already going to be used, so that makes for a table resting on four legs. Unfortunately, everybody skimped on the same leg. Any weight on that corner of the table and it might all turn over.

[Kane0]

That just makes it more interesting! There's no drama in perfection.

[Psikerlord]

Such are the evils of point buy. If you get your players roll for stats, you will see more variations in "dump" stats. Of course fixing Int so that it isnt a dump stat in the first place would also help. I like to say anyone with a -ve Int mod never learnt to read or write, for example, and is limited to their language and a smattering of common.

[HappyDaze]

Such are the evils of point buy. If you get your players roll for stats, you will see more variations in "dump" stats.
Went with Standard Array only (no Point Buy) to prevent multiple dump stats. I don't mind dump stats, but I do wish the group had spread them out a little rather than everyone dumping Intelligence. I was a little surprised as I've often seen Strength used as the other dump stat, but even the Sorcerer went with Strength 10 and Intelligence 8 (and he doesn't have proficiency in the Arcana skill) and the Rogue did the same.

[Laserlight]

they have woefully little in the knowledge type skills...the intrigue and politics side I had planned.

If you told me "intrigue and politics", I'd pick up Deception, Persuasion, Insight, Investigation, maybe Perception, Performance, Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Intimidation...none of which are INT based.

(edit: Investigation IS based on INT. I was wondering if anyone would notice...)

I'd like someone in the party to have Arcana and History, true. Did the party design their characters separately?

[HappyDaze]

If you told me "intrigue and politics", I'd pick up Deception, Persuasion, Insight, Investigation, maybe Perception, Performance, Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Intimidation...none of which are INT based.

I'd like someone in the party to have Arcana and History, true. Did the party design their characters separately?

Everyone was together for character creation except the guy that made the Half-Elf Paladin (plan is Oath of Redemption) from the Selesnya Conclave. He's got Nature... one of the few Int-based skills in the party, but he also has Int 8 (of course).

[Misterwhisper]

The problem is lore skills and dming.

Investigation could be a key skill, or like most tables I see, they just roll perception for it anyway, or the players who are much smarter than their characters figure it out.

However, all lore skills are usually seen as optional because if you were supposed to know you will find out some way, if you weren’t then it doesn’t matter.

I usually see str as a dump stat but int is no more than 12 around where I play.

The issue with bound accuracy and lore skills is that well usually everyone rolls for lore skills and when you have 5 people rolling someone is going to get a good roll. Lore skills are a group skill only one person has to succeed really. Most other skills are needed individually.

They should have never gotten rid of skill points.

[HappyDaze]

However, all lore skills are usually seen as optional because if you were supposed to know you will find out some way, if you weren’t then it doesn’t matter.


Is it OK to subvert this? If they are "supposed to know" but don't get there, then they end up having a much harder time than they otherwise would? This could include things like not recognizing threats for what they are and stepping into fights they have a low chance of winning (or even surviving), not recognizing what's actually going on and going after red herrings (which could lead back to the previous issue), or wasting time trying to figure out what more intelligent and educated people would have known and the excess time compromising their chances of success (note that many adventures I have in mind will have a 'ticking clock' intended to keep the challenge level up and to prevent frequent long rests).

[Mr.Spastic]

It sound like you want to run a type a game and your platers aren't interested in that type. You can't really "fix" this problem from a gameplay side. Your players all dumped intelligence because they probably don't want to play a game that requires their characters to have a lot of int.

Also, the term politics might have been interpreted as a more insight and deception rather than investigation. If the only thing they will miss out on is investigation, then it might not be that bad. Unless it is entirely reliant on investigation and then your screwed.

Side note: I'm not going to fully encourage this but if you gave them warnings about low int, you can always force them to play with that low int. Say a player figures out the deduces the plot because the player is smart. You can always tell them that they can't act on their knowledge because their character would not know. It can be a bit harsh but it stops a lot metagaming. For example, say you have monsters that are weak to fire. The player knows that but their character with the 8 int who never ran across the monster before might have to roll a high DC nature check.

[lunaticfringe]

Is it OK to subvert this? If they are "supposed to know" but don't get there, then they end up having a much harder time than they otherwise would? This could include things like not recognizing threats for what they are and stepping into fights they have a low chance of winning (or even surviving), not recognizing what's actually going on and going after red herrings (which could lead back to the previous issue), or wasting time trying to figure out what more intelligent and educated people would have known and the excess time compromising their chances of success (note that many adventures I have in mind will have a 'ticking clock' intended to keep the challenge level up and to prevent frequent long rests).

Seems likes a poor time to try seeing as how everyone dumped Int. Have you played with these people? How did it work then? Why would it change other than you are salty about how your players built their characters?

[Misterwhisper]

Is it OK to subvert this? If they are "supposed to know" but don't get there, then they end up having a much harder time than they otherwise would? This could include things like not recognizing threats for what they are and stepping into fights they have a low chance of winning (or even surviving), not recognizing what's actually going on and going after red herrings (which could lead back to the previous issue), or wasting time trying to figure out what more intelligent and educated people would have known and the excess time compromising their chances of success (note that many adventures I have in mind will have a 'ticking clock' intended to keep the challenge level up and to prevent frequent long rests).

Many players see that along the lines of, “well if the dm wants to kill his game, sure go ahead.

Happened to me when I was dming a game with a rogue, bard, barbarian, warlock and fighter.

Somehow still not an int over ten and not a single lore skills.

The group was in a town that was very creepy and cultish bit nobody could roll for crap on religion to notice the subtle symbols of worship here and there.

They went to the library to research it and when I asked for investigation rolls the group whined that it should be perception. I pointed out they are researching and looking for the right book, it is investigation.

Their response was, (I say their but really it was just the main egomaniac minmaxer, but the others jumped on the bandwagon) “well, screw this then, it is usually either the mayor or the priest, lets go interrogate the priest first, we can cover that up easier.”

Note, it was not even close to the correct targets, all the farmers made a deal with a dark nature spirit for good crops but in return they all worshiped her and paid tribute with the blood of an unbeliever every month.

Game died about an hour later after the group were essentially lynched, they were level 4 but 300 pissed off townsfolk kind of win that scuffle.

Town got justice, sort of, and the cultists subtly got their sacrifice handled and some extra brownie points to their patron.

[Stygofthedump]

i read a thread on using intelligence for initiative instead of dex, solving more than one issue. Probably over powering wizards sadly.

[Malifice]

Here is a HR I have been thinking about IMG.

Firstly a quick discussion of the rules, and in particular, of 2 skills (one of which is the most used skill in the game, and the second of which is the least used skill in the game):

Assumption 1: Perception is the skill used to notice something. It does not (in and of itself) provide any information or deduction with respect of what you observed, smelt, heard, noticed or percieved.

Assumption 2: Investigation is the skill used to deduce correct information gleaned (from something observed, percieved or noticed with Perception).

In other words it's a Wisdom [Perception] check to notice a set of tracks in the dust that are snaking around a hallway in front of you, however it is then an Intelligence check to deduce from this observaton, that this means the person making those tracks was intentionally avoiding certain areas of the hallway, likely because there is something concealed there (such as a pit).

Wisdom [Perception] only provides the information. Intelligence [Investigation] deduces what that information means. One is useless without the other; information on its own does nothing, unless you can also interpret what that information means.

So far so good.

So while a Perceptive individual might notice a smell, sound, sight or thing, they simply [I]might not understand what it means. They might notice the tracks sneaking around the concealed pit, or notice that the flagstones in front of them in the hallway are a slightly different shape or color, but not be able to 'put 2 and 2 together' and realise this means something of note.

The problem is that DMs will declare the observed thing to the Player, [who then uses his own deduction skills to figure out what that information means, and not use the deduction skills of his character, even when he is playing a complete idiot who would struggle to put 2 and 2 together.

Solution:

Instead of Perception DCs for passive perception for traps and hidden things and creatures, all DCs intead become Deduction DCs, compared against the lower of both Passive Perception to first notice the thing (and provide information), and also Passive Investigation to interpret and reason that observation of the thing (the information) into something useable.

If your passive Investigate or Perception doesnt hit the mark, you either dont notice the threat (Perception), or you do notice it, but ignore/ dont register/ fail to understand or interpret the information (Investigation) or both (and in any event fail to get any information). The end result is the same. It fails to register; you either noticed it but discounted it, or you didnt notice it at all.

For example, presume a Pit with a 'Deduction DC 13' is approached by Harry the perceptive idiot (Wisdom 14, Perception skill bonus +5, Passive Perception 15, however Int 8, no Investigate skill, Passive Investigation 7).

DM: 'You noticed the flagstones looked a different color (Perception DC 13, PC's Passive Perception is 15) but your PC is such an idiot (Passive Investigation 7 due to no skill and Int of 8) your character failed to deduce this meant 'danger; probable pit trap here, avoid' and thus you stumbled straight over it.'

TL;DR - Passive Perception is now called Passive Deduction, and is set at (the lower of your Investigate or Perception skill bonus) +10. When a PC makes a check to notice something or someone hidden, the DM calls for a check of the lower of the two skills (Perception or Investigation), unless only one skill would be clearly relevant , such as when the PC has already noticed something obvious, and is trying to figure out what that means (Investigate), or they havent yet noticed the thing, but it would be blindingly obvious what it is/ does if they did so (Perception).

Basically perceptive people who are also idiots stumble into traps and (despite the blindingly obvious) miss important clues. Geniuses who put Sherlock Holmes to shame, need to notive the clues first, before they can interpret those clues and figure out what they mean. It's a two step process.

[ad_hoc]

Are they actually optimized if they are going to have a hard time ?

Group think is a thing.

In a group I just started up with 5 PCs there was only 1 character with an Int below 12.

[Particle_Man]

Offer a bribe: if one of the players will switch their character to one that has the other non-nature knowledge skills and investigation, they get a free 20 int and party leader status (and some social standing from the npcs, similar to the noble background special ability). Basically, they get to be the Poirot/Sherlock Holmes type.

If that doesn’t work offer 20’s in all stats as a bribe. If that doesn’t work, give up and try a different campaign.

[Malifice]

Offer a bribe: if one of the players will switch their character to one that has the other non-nature knowledge skills and investigation, they get a free 20 int and party leader status (and some social standing from the npcs, similar to the noble background special ability). Basically, they get to be the Poirot/Sherlock Holmes type.

If that doesn’t work offer 20’s in all stats as a bribe. If that doesn’t work, give up and try a different campaign.

Simply roll Perception and Investigate into one bonus (you use the lower of the two skills).

He just keeps noticing things that a smarter person would realise meant 'trap' or were actually important to him. He's just too much of a dunce to figure it out.

DM: Yes, you noticed the strange cobblestones/ important clue (passive [Wisdom] Perception 15). Sadly your PC failed to put 2 and 2 together and walked right over them/ ignored it (passive [Intelligence] Investigation 8).

[HappyDaze]

Are they actually optimized if they are going to have a hard time ?
They are "optimized" according to online recommendations for their classes they've read. Several of those have come from this forum.

[ad_hoc]

They are "optimized" according to online recommendations for their classes they've read. Several of those have come from this forum.

Well we found the problem.

[Skylivedk]

Tell them you'll play by the intelligence description in the book and they will have a hard time with anything requiring deductive reasoning including riddles, puzzles, financial con artists and everything in between.

In most of my campaigns the deadliest scores to dump have, in prioritised order, been:

Wisdom (lack of understanding of self and others; bad impulse control + saves)

Intelligence (bad decision making)

Constitution/charisma (hit points vs public enemy/scapegoat)

In 3.5 the most combat optimised character had dumped charisma to a 6 (that ear possible in that campaign). He was wrongfully accused of some crime on a recurring basis and almost executed twice.

[MoiMagnus]

Low int chars can still be devious and manipulative, they're just lacking in education.

Intelligence doesn't have a lot to do with education.

Intelligence is "the capacity to reason and memories". So 8 Int characters are in the lower end of the population considering capacity to make logical reasoning (You know, the same kind of people that don't understand that "2 products bought, 50% of reduction on both" is the same as "1 product bought, 1 free".) and memory.

Sure, they can be devious and manipulative. But they are literally easily outsmarted.


Tell them you'll play by the intelligence description in the book and they will have a hard time with anything requiring deductive reasoning including riddles, puzzles, financial con artists and everything in between.

In most of my campaigns the deadliest scores to dump have, in prioritised order, been:

Wisdom (lack of understanding of self and others; bad impulse control + saves)

Intelligence (bad decision making)

Constitution/charisma (hit points vs public enemy/scapegoat)

In 3.5 the most combat optimised character had dumped charisma to a 6 (that ear possible in that campaign). He was wrongfully accused of some crime on a recurring basis and almost executed twice.

Good ideas! (assuming your PCs are aware of this before building character, of course)

[DeadMech]

I'm not sure I see the problem. You wanted an intrigue and politics game. Presumably the party choose to double down on charisma skills and stuff that interacts with the stealth mechanics. Rather than the knowledge skills that are better for... well, presumably they are good for something at some tables.

My only experience playing a knowledgemancer wizard wasn't particularly satisfying. Either terrible dice rolls at low levels or the DM just not wanting me to be able to apply those skills regardless of my roll meant that they didn't do anything throughout the entire campaign. But I better not rant about 5e's half baked skill system and bounded accuracy. I'll get yelled at again that it's not 5e's fault, it's the bad DM. Despite 5e not doing particularly much to train DMs to be good. But I'll point out that even in 3.5 when it was possible to actually be good at a skill and sample DC's were printed it was still well known to be poor planning for a DM to lock quest progression behind a single DC check.

Investigate might be important for such a game but that's either something the rogue picked up or not depending on if he thinks you'll force him to roll it instead of perception. And if lack of these int based skills is really that damaging to your campaign you could just reward them with a skill proficiency instead of treasure for some work they do early in.

[Incorrect]

Give them access to a friendly NPC with high Int and Knowledge skills, that can explain stuff to them. They tell him what they saw, and he helps them with additional information.
Its basically Cain the Elder from Diablo. To avoid the DMPC he shouldn't go adventuring with them.

At a critical point, this important NPC will be killed or kidnapped by the bad guys.. of cause.

[Laserlight]

Sometimes players are...well, my group are all smart people, but sometimes I wonder. They asked for a mini campaign to assassinate a Duke and kidnap his daughter. But when it came time to get into the castle and do the deed, their plan was "knock out the warlock (who'd been going off on his own), take him to the castle and turn him in for the bounty." Note the complete lack of "and then we...", not to mention the absence of "find out about the castle floor plan, where the Duke is likely to be, the Duke's powers, number of guards, etc etc."

They said they wanted intrigue and plotting; based on their actions, they actually wanted to murder-hobo in a town vs in the wilderness.

[Unoriginal]

Not knowing something should sometime lock parts of quests, without altrnative that makes the check irrelevent. But only parts of the thing.

Maybe it'll make you lose days on the doomclock. Maybe you don't find a nice reward. Maybe not knowing something will just make a fight or another task harder.

Point is, ability checks are only as important as the rewards and consequences you get from them.

But I better be careful with that, people risk to "correct my wrong assumptions" about how 5e's ability check system and bounded accuracy work well and how DMs are actually told how it works.


They are "optimized" according to online recommendations for their classes they've read. Several of those have come from this forum.

So not actually optimized.

Have you tried explaining your concerns to the players as a group?

[dickerson76]

I did make the "combat won't be everything" point very clear, but they don't seem too concerned. They "know" that failed knowledge (Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion) checks "shouldn't block success" the way losses in combat can. In effect, it's metagaming character creation.

From a world-building stand point, failing in combat leads to death. Failing in knowledge checks is more survivable. That points to low-INT parties as the outcome of natural selection.

[Skylivedk]

Good ideas! (assuming your PCs are aware of this before building character, of course)

Of course. The player was very carefully warned, built it into his character's background story and endured a frustrating love story with a flawed character.

Meanwhile, the low wisdom Wizard roleplayed his lack of common sense by trying to appease a fairy dragon to become his pet by offering it most of his worldly possessions - and by starting a Wizard guild where most recruits were as suited for magic as a sieve is for transporting water

[jdolch]

Well, maybe optimized for a different campaign. Can't really compare a political campaign to something like CoS. And i would say dumping INT is a core part of several good optimizing strategies. It's not really debatable that INT is the most useless Stat of all. And yes we can debate all day long how it shouldn't be that way, but it is, for several reasons. One of them being that INT is the one stat that depends on the player more than the sheet.

[NaughtyTiger]

8 Int is dumber than a commoner.

not low average, but dumber

of all the humanoids in Faerun, the average intelligence is 10. let's assume adventurers and notable badasses are 3% of the Faerun.
thus the standard deviation is +/- 1 Int... the average commoner is 9-11 Int.

[KorvinStarmast]

They are "optimized" according to online recommendations for their classes they've read. Several of those have come from this forum. Then your title fits well enough.

8 Int is dumber than a commoner.
of all the humanoids in Faerun, the average intelligence is 10. let's assume adventurers and notable badasses are 3% of the Faerun. thus the standard deviation is +/- 1 Int... the average commoner is 9-11 Int. Which makes these PCs the only ones dumb enough to become adventurers. Works like a champ.

[Wildarm]

Here is a HR I have been thinking about IMG.

TL;DR - Passive Perception is now called Passive Deduction, and is set at (the lower of your Investigate or Perception skill bonus) +10. When a PC makes a check to notice something or someone hidden, the DM calls for a check of the lower of the two skills (Perception or Investigation), unless only one skill would be clearly relevant , such as when the PC has already noticed something obvious, and is trying to figure out what that means (Investigate), or they havent yet noticed the thing, but it would be blindingly obvious what it is/ does if they did so (Perception).

Basically perceptive people who are also idiots stumble into traps and (despite the blindingly obvious) miss important clues. Geniuses who put Sherlock Holmes to shame, need to notive the clues first, before they can interpret those clues and figure out what they mean. It's a two step process.

I like the concept of this but the simpler solution is to get rid of passive skills altogether. To me, it's a bit of a crutch in adventure design. You're the DM, you can set the DC to whatever you want for players spot things. If you don't want the rain-man savant Rogue to notice the trap, you can just set the DC higher than his passive perception. If you want them to see the floor is covered with some horrid substance, let them.

Spotting something with a passive skill seems like nothing more than the DM pointing out something. Better to empower the players and let them roll a check at the appropriate time. If they are entering an area with something suspicious, leave clues or hints in the room description. Ask them their marching orders and preparations in general when exploring an area. If they have made decent preparations, give them a warning before something happens so they can react. I use Investigation a lot more than perception due to this as the group is actively searching for things a lot more often.

[elyktsorb]

Played in a game once where my INT was 10, not bad or good. But I used Vicious Mockery on a Swarm of Rats. (This was because neither my character or myself realized it wouldn't work.) When I didn't hit with it, I assume it passed it's saving throw and tried again. At this point I realized that 'oh wait, it doesn't work on a swarm of rats' as I look at the spell. But the DM had me roll an INT check, where I got a 3. To which my character became convinced using Vicious Mockery on the rats actually worked.

Of course I knew it didn't work, but my character didn't.

I feel like INT only works from a character perspective if the player wants to play their characters INT as opposed to just using their own intelligence.

Personally I'm usually inclined to play my characters intelligence. I just enjoy it.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Recently played in a campaign where the DM made it explicitly clear at the beginning that a PC had to have proficiency in the skill to even attempt it (medicine, arcana, any religion outside of your own, any nature your background would suggest you wouldn't be familiar with). It made those skills more attractive to actually take. Also, he used Investigation whenever he reasonably could instead of perception (searches, secret doors, traps).

Needless to say, at least a couple of PCs dumped Str instead.

I think you need to be pretty careful penalizing players for having low Int PCs, though. Saying that your PC wouldn't know about something which they shouldn't is one thing. But telling them that their PC can't act upon something which that PC just discovered in-game, because the PC's Int is too low, sounds pretty off-putting. Asking the player if their PC would know what something meant seems fine, gives the player a chance to role play the Int score. But taking away player agency because you're trying to punish low-average Int scores seems more likely to piss players off (not to mention discouraging smart play by your players).

[KorvinStarmast]

Recently played in a campaign where the DM made it explicitly clear at the beginning that a PC had to have proficiency in the skill to even attempt it (medicine, arcana, any religion outside of your own, any nature your background would suggest you wouldn't be familiar with).
Some people just can't get out of 3e, can they.
Maybe the DM ought to read chapter 7. And this time, read for comprehension.
Sounds like you guys still get fun out of it, so goodonya! :)
(Fixed typo)

[Guy Lombard-O]

Some people just can't get out of 3e, can they.
Maybe the DM ought to read chapter 8. And this time, read for comprehension.
Sounds like you guys still get fun out of it, so goodonya! :)

Yeah, I'm not saying I recommend it. Never played 3e, so I'll take your word for it on his inspiration for the rule. Just saying that it did accomplish what the poster seems to be seeking, a valid reason to invest in Int and knowledge skills for non-wizards (his limitation only applied to those 4 skills, as I remember).

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, I'm not saying I recommend it. Never played 3e, so I'll take your word for it on his inspiration for the rule. Just saying that it did accomplish what the poster seems to be seeking, a valid reason to invest in Int and knowledge skills for non-wizards (his limitation only applied to those 4 skills, as I remember). Cool, sounds like you guys are having fun, which is The Thing.

And then there are shennanigans.
My (none too bright) Orc battle master, with an 8 Int, just got a Headband of Intellect. Int = 19 now. Woot! He is now the smartest guy in the party. He has succeeded on a few arcana and history checks. It's kinda funny.
Our prime spell caster is a Tempest cleric ... no wizard, that player left and was replaced by a Ranger.

[Wildarm]

Recently played in a campaign where the DM made it explicitly clear at the beginning that a PC had to have proficiency in the skill to even attempt it (medicine, arcana, any religion outside of your own, any nature your background would suggest you wouldn't be familiar with). It made those skills more attractive to actually take. Also, he used Investigation whenever he reasonably could instead of perception (searches, secret doors, traps).


I do this at times at my table. It's mainly to try and make a character shine. If someone has picked up proficiency in a skill then I often give only them the chance to roll it. The RNG on a d20 is too high IMO for many skills. As a DM and player I find it annoying and anti-dramatic for the rogue to completely flub an easy stealth check only for the plate mail wearing fighter to get lucky and roll higher even with disadvantage and a dex penalty. Letting everyone get a roll without proficiency tends to break immersion. It can sometimes be funny but I guess it comes down to how much RNG you want at your table.

Personally I dislike it if a player makes a conscious choice to try and make their character an expert in something only to have it fail horribly. More a problem in Tier 1/2 than higher tiers where proficiency/expertise/ASIs actually do make a significant contribution to your roll. There, even if you flub it you'll still manage to succeed on easy/moderate tasks.

It sometimes happens that the character who is most likely to know about something fails their roll. Other players might pipe up saying they want to try too. If no one else has proficiency in the skill, I'll usually rule it that the group tries to think of a solution together and the skilled player gets a reroll as they brainstorm or work together with others. I'll then describe how the teamwork happens. Makes everyone feel like they contributed and makes the main player still get to shine.

Also, award inspiration and give your players something big and shiny to hold onto to remind them to use it to help their friends. I often say it's a d6 inspiration for you or a re-roll for allies. Again helps both the active player and the person giving the assist a chance to shine.

[Man_Over_Game]

If they like playing dumb people, just let them. Modify the campaign to suit.

Sure, it takes a lot of work, but if the entire group wants a combat-oriented slogfest, and only one person wants intrigue and politics, who's the odd man out?

In this case, maybe they are part of a plot of intrigue, but put into a place where they can use their "talents" most effectively. Maybe they're part of a Boros enforcement squad, hired to quell rebellions and to maintain the peace. Maybe they're hired as "cleaners" for the Golgari and the Simic, to kill any experiments gone wrong.

Bulldozers are dumb and destructive, and sometimes that's perfect for the right mission. Right now, I think you're just suggesting the wrong mission.

[Laserlight]

In my most recent mini campaign, the players wanted to have the mission of going to a neighboring nation, killing the ruling duke, and kidnapping the duke's daughter.

When it came time to assassinate the duke, they asked exactly zero questions about the layout of the castle, the defenses, the number of guards, the duke's likely whereabouts, the duke's capabilities. Their "plan" to get into the castle was a spur of the moment "The warlock has been running off on his own and killing townsfolk. Let's knock him out, take him to the castle, and turn him in for bounty; that'll get us inside the gate." There was no "and then we...." after that.

So...they said they wanted intrigue, but what their behavior said they actually wanted was to be "murder hobos in a city". Sounds like your players might be the same.

Or maybe they just don't see a need for INT skills in an intrigue campaign, in which case you might need to clarify why someone should have a higher INT.

[Pex]

The players have some onus in the matter for choosing IN as their dump, but it's not entirely their fault. 5E Point Buy is unforgiving for the game rules. Bounded Accuracy. Every ability score is a saving throw. Classes are highly dependent on their prime scores. Players are right to want their character to be as good as possible to what they're supposed to be doing. A 14 at 1st level in their prime isn't a catastrophe, but they're absolutely forbidden from having a 18 and getting a 16 is expensive, costing them a 14 or 15 that must be bought and limiting their character race choice. They are going to dump what they don't need, and that means IN for the most part, ST for the spellcasters, and CH for those who don't care about social interaction with NPCs.

If everyone is dumping IN then the Knowledge skills aren't important to them. To make them important don't have too many high DCs on the checks and have making the DC mean something more than just knowing about the gameworld. If the players absolutely need to know something you'd tell them anyway as part of the campaign plot. Have knowing things mean the adventure is easier. They can find an expensive item cheaper. They get Advantage on some roll. They autosucceed on something they normally would have had to roll. Obviously don't do this for everything. It's only for at least a noticeable number of times the players find value in the Knowledge skills and thus IN.

[Man_Over_Game]

In my most recent mini campaign, the players wanted to have the mission of going to a neighboring nation, killing the ruling duke, and kidnapping the duke's daughter.

When it came time to assassinate the duke, they asked exactly zero questions about the layout of the castle, the defenses, the number of guards, the duke's likely whereabouts, the duke's capabilities. Their "plan" to get into the castle was a spur of the moment "The warlock has been running off on his own and killing townsfolk. Let's knock him out, take him to the castle, and turn him in for bounty; that'll get us inside the gate." There was no "and then we...." after that.

So...they said they wanted intrigue, but what their behavior said they actually wanted was to be "murder hobos in a city". Sounds like your players might be the same.

Or maybe they just don't see a need for INT skills in an intrigue campaign, in which case you might need to clarify why someone should have a higher INT.

Here's a great advice post on this exact topic with a DM with some problem players. It's very relevant, and has some good ideas on what to do in these situations without having to strongarm the players:
How can I utilize overly-violent PCs for character development / progressing the story? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/129713/how-can-i-utilize-overly-violent-pcs-for-character-development-progressing-the/129715#129715)

[Pex]

8 Int is dumber than a commoner.

not low average, but dumber

of all the humanoids in Faerun, the average intelligence is 10. let's assume adventurers and notable badasses are 3% of the Faerun.
thus the standard deviation is +/- 1 Int... the average commoner is 9-11 Int.

Adventurers are dumber than commoners. Commoners remain home and safe. Adventurers go into dangerous monster lairs, forests, and mountains looking for treasure or to be a Hero of some Cause risking death.

[Marywn]

The 8 int is not a sign of idiocy, it's more of they can't catch on to more complicated matters and the such. Though 8 int for 4 people is pretty cool, Imagine all the crazy things you can do! you guys can be like the 3 stooges

[olskool]

Such are the evils of point buy. If you get your players roll for stats, you will see more variations in "dump" stats. Of course fixing Int so that it isnt a dump stat in the first place would also help. I like to say anyone with a -ve Int mod never learnt to read or write, for example, and is limited to their language and a smattering of common.

I don't allow point buy but I'm a "Grognard." I do the "old school" roll 4D6, drop the lowest rolled number and assign the numbers to Characteristics according to your desired Class. I allow TWO 1-point shifts after Racial Mods are added in. For those unfamiliar with a "shift," it's where you drop one score a point in order to raise another score a point.

I also don't allow AUTOMATIC Characteristic/Attribute increases during play (even with FEATS). Each new Level, you get to try and raise ONE Characteristic by ONE POINT by rolling over that Characteristic's current score on 1D20. Succeed and you gain that 1 point.

[Benny89]

Sadly it's a system fault. INT is just pretty much useless stat. Apart from wizard, the only puropuse it has is some RP flavour (ow, I know History and Arcanes etc.) but it has really no real-gameplay benefit.

On the other hand a typical 1st level Paladin wiht 16 CHA starts with +5 to intimidation and persuasion which is a HUGE gameplay benefit as you can use it both combat/prevent combat wise, in negotating party reward, buying items for better prices, in political intrigues etc etc.

The fact is, a team with at least one or two high CHA characters can easly participte in story full of intrigues.

INT is dump stat for a reason. It just doesn't do anything useful. Sure we can think of "ow, but that one time I was able to save my party because of my XXX knowledge". Sure, it CAN be useful, but things like Persuasion is always useful, especially if player is good.

I would just treat them as average people when it comes to knowledge, math, language etc. but that doesn't mean they can't shine in political story.

[MrStabby]

I use this for traps. Investigation for physical traps, religion to recognise inscriptions for curses and arcana for glyphs and other arcane traps. Knowledge skills also generate a bit of a tactical briefing And give some strengths, weaknesses and tactics of monsters depending on roll. Nature gives elemental and beasts, religion celestial and fiends and some undead. History gives tales about individual NPCs and their exploits.

Mixing skills also can work well (although I dropped some skills from the system to make it work). You want to recognise that that odd pattern on a rock means it is in fact a large mimic octopus - a nature wisdom check. An int persuasion check might be an attempt to logically prove to an NPC something they believe in is wrong.

The downside is you really need to run a one-shot first to demonstrate how it works.

I wouldn't assume that people don't want an intreague campaign due to dumping int. If the table would be waiting a long time till the next campaign they may just be deciding to play the class they really want to have a go at.

[Benny89]

I use this for traps. Investigation for physical traps, religion to recognise inscriptions for curses and arcana for glyphs and other arcane traps. Knowledge skills also generate a bit of a tactical briefing And give some strengths, weaknesses and tactics of monsters depending on roll. Nature gives elemental and beasts, religion celestial and fiends and some undead. History gives tales about individual NPCs and their exploits.

Mixing skills also can work well (although I dropped some skills from the system to make it work). You want to recognise that that odd pattern on a rock means it is in fact a large mimic octopus - a nature wisdom check. An int persuasion check might be an attempt to logically prove to an NPC something they believe in is wrong.

The downside is you really need to run a one-shot first to demonstrate how it works.

I wouldn't assume that people don't want an intreague campaign due to dumping int. If the table would be waiting a long time till the next campaign they may just be deciding to play the class they really want to have a go at.

Physical traps If I am correct are handled by Perception and Survival. Religion and Arcana and History- pure knowledge skills, agree. But NPC exploits are handled by Insight or just by Persuasion/Intimidiation (just ask people close to NPC or people who have knowledge like local bard/priest etc.).

Sadly outside of pure knowledge tests INT doesn't offer anything usefull.

I think Survival and Nature maybe should be INT/WIS depends on character. For example Druid would use Wisdom for Nature checks, but a scholar who is studying nature would use INT.

Insight imo should be INT. Would give it nice boost.