Cantrips for all!

[poolio]

I recent post concerning giving extra cantrips to casters based on their casting modifier got me thinking,

What would happen if all classes had access to all cantrip choices? The amount of cantrips known is equal to your INT modifier, would certainly make making INT your dump stat a lot less appealing, and non full casters use INT for casting stat.

What types of issues could this bring?

[Man_Over_Game]

Paladin would have very little reason to multiclass, as would Monk.
Rogue no longer needs to invest in Arcane Trickster for an efficient Mage Hand or equivalent ability.
Magic Initiate would no longer be considered a great feat.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Certain subclasses become far less attractive; the big class feature of Arcane Trickster is an invisible Mage Hand, and I don't think the cantrip version being visible is a big enough difference that people would keep playing ATs.

Having cantrips is something that makes magical classes special, in the same way that multi-attack makes martials special.

[LibraryOgre]

Isn't there a feat which makes some cantrips available, regardless of your class?

[Sigreid]

I don't mean this to be as combative as I think it is going to sound, but I don't understand why some people are always trying to give some class's features away to the other classes; degrading the reason to play that class.

[Ventruenox]

I don't mean this to be as combative as I think it is going to sound, but I don't understand why some people are always trying to give some class's features away to the other classes; degrading the reason to play that class.

When presented with a choice of this or that, who wouldn't want an option that gives you this, that, and the other?

[Sigreid]

When presented with a choice of this or that, who wouldn't want an option that gives you this, that, and the other?

Yeah, I get that but I see it as clearly destructive to the system, eventually winding up with one class to rule them all.

[Man_Over_Game]

When presented with a choice of this or that, who wouldn't want an option that gives you this, that, and the other?

"Everyone gets proficiency with Martial Weapons". Sounds like a big deal, then you realize it isn't, then you realize it is.

Those that want to use Martial Weapons are the kind to already need it. Those that didn't have it have their options opened up a little bit. Doesn't really seem that bad.

Until you realize that the Trickster Cleric and the Death Cleric are made worse because they lose out on one small thing that made them stand out. Pact of the Blade is now never considered as opposed to just "rarely". Life and Nature Clerics are now one of the best choices and are better than Paladins at being melee tanks despite being full casters. Kensei will no longer matter now that every Monk can use a Longbow.



Large-scale changes to class mechanics can tip over a lot of balance. Sure, the Arcane Trickster isn't the highest damage build, but it already dominates nearly any RP/utility event, and giving them more cantrips will just make them even better.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an extreme variation on this, you could have a campaign in which PCs don't get access to the casting classes or most casting subclasses, but instead can take the Magic Initiate and Ritual casting Feats for access to minor magic.

(For a previous-version take on this, see the Midnight setting.)

[poolio]

I thought the Arcane tricksters mage hand could give it sneak attack as well? Or would that be an option with any use of mage hand? I'm AFB right now (I'm currently at work, don't tell my boss) and this is more of a "what if the game was designed like this?" type of question, so it stepping on other classes/sup classes features or traits didn't really figure into my thoughts at the time.

[Man_Over_Game]

I thought the Arcane tricksters mage hand could give it sneak attack as well? Or would that be an option with any use of mage hand? I'm AFB right now (I'm currently at work, don't tell my boss) and this is more of a "what if the game was designed like this?" type of question, so it stepping on other classes/sup classes features or traits didn't really figure into my thoughts at the time.

Not until level 13. At level 3, it's an invisible Mage Hand that you can move as a Bonus Action and can do most of the Roguish things you'd expect from a Rogue (Picking locks, stealing, etc).

[RSP]

I like classes each having their little things and not sharing. I’d rather not have every class have cantrips, the same way I’d rather not have every class have Extra Attack, or every class get its choice of any 4 skills.

[Mitsu]

I don't like it. Makes certain multiclass options much less attractive.

For example multi PAM paladin to Socradin or Warlock for booming blade or quicken booming blade would be less attractive.

Multi Monks same. Multi to cleric would also lose some flavour.

Also Magic: Innate feat would become obsolate.

Though War Caster would become much better feat for more classes without multi.

But I don't like it. I like that you need to be creative to get some stuff.

[BreaktheStatue]

I recent post concerning giving extra cantrips to casters based on their casting modifier got me thinking,

What would happen if all classes had access to all cantrip choices? The amount of cantrips known is equal to your INT modifier, would certainly make making INT your dump stat a lot less appealing, and non full casters use INT for casting stat.

What types of issues could this bring?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a big motivation for this is to stop players from consistently choosing INT as their dump stat. And I understand that. It's definitely annoying when you have a group of intelligent players, all with ≤ 8 INT PCs, who use their OoC player intelligence to hatch Moriarty-like schemes for their dumb PCs, when they should be roleplaying them as using the fingers to count.

I don't know, I guess I'm a jerk, but rather than incentivize INT by giving away cantrips, I would talk with my players and let them know that there will be in-game negative consequences for consistently dumping INT. "Your 8 INT paladin is far too dumb to try to decrypt this encrypted letter, and I'm not going to let you roll for it to try to get lucky." That sort of thing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a big motivation for this is to stop players from consistently choosing INT as their dump stat. And I understand that. It's definitely annoying when you have a group of intelligent players, all with ≤ 8 INT PCs, who use their OoC player intelligence to hatch Moriarty-like schemes for their dumb PCs, when they should be roleplaying them as using the fingers to count.

I don't know, I guess I'm a jerk, but rather than incentivize INT by giving away cantrips, I would talk with my players and let them know that there will be in-game negative consequences for consistently dumping INT. "Your 8 INT paladin is far too dumb to try to decrypt this encrypted letter, and I'm not going to let you roll for it to try to get lucky." That sort of thing.

You mean actually hold players to the consequences of their build decisions, and not let them treat the character as a gimmicked-up plastic playing piece?

:smallbiggrin:

[poolio]

I'm seeing a lot of stuff about how it would make magic initate pointless, ect. But this wouldn't remove the need for main stats, so it would be maybe one or two cantrips for most non casters, tops, and magic initate gives two cantrips, plus a once a day 1st level spell, in this scenario it's like getting a +4 to INT (not exactly i know, cause skills don't get a plus and neather would the casting modifier, but you get my point)
Plus the martial classes don't get much out of the melee cantrips, not when they could be making multiple attacks, and without the invocations, eldritch blast isn't that much better then fire bolt (still better mathematically, just not the powerhouse end all be all cantrip it is in the Warlocks hands)

But anyway, so forget all classes getting cantrips, what about only full casters and EK/AT getting their cantrips based on INT?

And all the cantrips being on the same list?

[JoeJ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a big motivation for this is to stop players from consistently choosing INT as their dump stat. And I understand that. It's definitely annoying when you have a group of intelligent players, all with ≤ 8 INT PCs, who use their OoC player intelligence to hatch Moriarty-like schemes for their dumb PCs, when they should be roleplaying them as using the fingers to count.

Yeah, that's almost as bad as PCs who dump dexterity and then refuse to roleplay tripping over their own feet. If you've got a dex of 8 or less, every time you draw a weapon you should be rolling to see if you injure yourself.

Or you could use ability scores to represent what is specified for them in the rules, and nothing else.

[BreaktheStatue]

Yeah, that's almost as bad as PCs who dump dexterity and then refuse to roleplay tripping over their own feet. If you've got a dex of 8 or less, every time you draw a weapon you should be rolling to see if you injure yourself.

Or you could use ability scores to represent what is specified for them in the rules, and nothing else.

The difference is that a naturally dexterous player can't leverage their IRL personal dexterity to offset the mechanical shortcomings they've baked into their character. INT's not like that. As long as you're not playing a wizard (or certain subclassses), there's little reason to ever not dump INT, because the biggest mechanical consequence is that you'll roll one less on the occasional history/arcana/nature/etc. roll (although there are some nasty saving throws you can also miss).

Which is fine, if you're only interested in the mechanical aspect of the game. But the automatic INT-dump thing just strikes me as dishonest from a role-playing perspective, because a lot of the people I see do it also try to make the most intelligent decisions possible for their characters. That's cool in a video game, but for a TTRPG? It just rubs me the wrong way.

[Mitsu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a big motivation for this is to stop players from consistently choosing INT as their dump stat. And I understand that. It's definitely annoying when you have a group of intelligent players, all with ≤ 8 INT PCs, who use their OoC player intelligence to hatch Moriarty-like schemes for their dumb PCs, when they should be roleplaying them as using the fingers to count.

I don't know, I guess I'm a jerk, but rather than incentivize INT by giving away cantrips, I would talk with my players and let them know that there will be in-game negative consequences for consistently dumping INT. "Your 8 INT paladin is far too dumb to try to decrypt this encrypted letter, and I'm not going to let you roll for it to try to get lucky." That sort of thing.

Wth all due respect, that is a little jerk. I swear, if my DM would start critizing us for "you act too intelligent, you have INT 8" or "you can't make this decision, it's too Intelligent" I would either thank him and walk out of table or start to roleplay half-brain retard "Joe" and chase butterflies around.

I mean, it's still just a game. Taking table RPG too far serious and treating everything in game as strictly as possible and looking for every possible problem/hole/detail is little too much.

RPG is not real-life simulation. That is why there are rules, because it's a game.

Going with your example if someone have 8 STR he should be unable to use Maul or Two-Handed sword. Which is just being jerk, as rules says nothing about that.

Why? Because it's a game in the end. People play it to get out of real life mostly for a short time. Not to try to 100% simulate that.

Stats are just ability checks and saves. They should not force player to roleplay in any specific way. They shape their PCs, not their spreadsheets.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The difference is that a naturally dexterous player can't leverage their IRL personal dexterity to offset the mechanical shortcomings they've baked into their character. INT's not like that. As long as you're not playing a wizard (or certain subclasses), there's little reason to ever not dump INT, because the biggest mechanical consequence is that you'll roll one less on the occasional history/arcana/nature/etc. roll (although there are some nasty saving throws you can also miss).

Which is fine, if you're only interested in the mechanical aspect of the game. But the automatic INT-dump thing just strikes me as dishonest from a role-playing perspective, because a lot of the people I see do it also try to make the most intelligent decisions possible for their characters. That's cool in a video game, but for a TTRPG? It just rubs me the wrong way.

You seem to be falling into two common misconceptions, from my point of view at least.

The first being that an intelligence score of 8 makes you a buffoon. Having a -1 really doesn't make you that much worse off than having a 10. The second being (and this specifically relates to the part I've bolded in your quote) is that you might be confusing "Wise decisions" with "Intelligent decisions".

Making the best decision as an adventurer is often about intuition (directly attributed to wisdom in the PHB), not intelligence. Intelligence is more tied to accurately recalling/remembering information and piecing together details that might be connected.


I don't know, I guess I'm a jerk, but rather than incentivize INT by giving away cantrips, I would talk with my players and let them know that there will be in-game negative consequences for consistently dumping INT. "Your 8 INT paladin is far too dumb to try to decrypt this encrypted letter, and I'm not going to let you roll for it to try to get lucky." That sort of thing.
As for this, there's a simple solution that works from both a mechanical and in world perspective. You require them to be proficient in the check you're asking for. A Paladin who dumps their intelligence can still be as good or better than the 14 intelligence Fighter due to choosing proficiency in a skill. In this case, it could either be Investigation, Arcana or some sort of writing tools like Caligraphy or Forgery.

I think there's always a better solution to a perceived problem than making it your job to "punish" people for doing it.

[BreaktheStatue]

Wth all due respect, that is a little jerk. I swear, if my DM would start critizing us for "you act too intelligent, you have INT 8" or "you can't make this decision, it's too Intelligent" I would either thank him and walk out of table or start to roleplay half-brain retard "Joe" and chase butterflies around.

I mean, it's still just a game. Taking table RPG too far serious and treating everything in game as strictly as possible and looking for every possible problem/hole/detail is little too much.

RPG is not real-life simulation. That is why there are rules, because it's a game.

Going with your example if someone have 8 STR he should be unable to use Maul or Two-Handed sword. Which is just being jerk, as rules says nothing about that.

Why? Because it's a game in the end. People play it to get out of real life mostly for a short time. Not to try to 100% simulate that.

Stats are just ability checks and saves. They should not force player to roleplay in any specific way. They shape their PCs, not their spreadsheets.

I know it is a game. I guess my main question is why anyone would want to create a stronger incentive to pump the INT score to begin with, which seems to be one of OP's goals.

Personally, I wouldn't change any of it, and I also wouldn't disincentivize dumping INT, because I don't view it as being a major problem. But I do think penalizing INT dumps with RP consequences is preferable to reworking the cantrip system in ways that undermine certain subclasses (arcane trickster, etc.), as described above.

[Mitsu]

I know it is a game. I guess my main question is why anyone would want to create a stronger incentive to pump the INT score to begin with, which seems to be one of OP's goals.

Personally, I wouldn't change any of it, and I also wouldn't disincentivize dumping INT, because I don't view it as being a major problem. But I do think penalizing INT dumps with RP consequences is preferable to reworking the cantrip system in ways that undermine certain subclasses (arcane trickster, etc.), as described above.

I always wanted to give INT something more. I am not against dumping stats- it's a game, people don't like to invest in things they won't need- but I am against making one stats so obsolete vs others that only one class in game need to invest in it.

However, truth is- INT is almost pure roleplay stat when it comes to it's mechanical benefits (apart from playing Wizard of course). Because it benefits knowledge skills only. And knowledge skills are as important as DM makes them. And in 9/10 cases DMs don't make INT important enough.

For example riddles or puzzles in dungeons. To solve them- you need Arcane checks or History checks. You try to find some long forgotten artifact, but to understand next clue you need Religion check.

Or Investigation checks when you have some intrigue going on, have to connect clues etc.

But both examples above require DM to make campaign where that matters. And also rules do not help because everyone can make Arcane, History, Investigation etc. check even if they have no proficiency in it. And in team of let's say 5 players- if 5 players roll d20- chances are high someone will have high score (or INT player got low) and whole INT bumping for roleplay reason will seem pointless.

INT is just bad designed stat sadly.

[Max_Killjoy]

Wth all due respect, that is a little jerk. I swear, if my DM would start critizing us for "you act too intelligent, you have INT 8" or "you can't make this decision, it's too Intelligent" I would either thank him and walk out of table or start to roleplay half-brain retard "Joe" and chase butterflies around.

I mean, it's still just a game. Taking table RPG too far serious and treating everything in game as strictly as possible and looking for every possible problem/hole/detail is little too much.

RPG is not real-life simulation. That is why there are rules, because it's a game.

Going with your example if someone have 8 STR he should be unable to use Maul or Two-Handed sword. Which is just being jerk, as rules says nothing about that.

Why? Because it's a game in the end. People play it to get out of real life mostly for a short time. Not to try to 100% simulate that.

Stats are just ability checks and saves. They should not force player to roleplay in any specific way. They shape their PCs, not their spreadsheets.

That's one approach -- what some have called "gamism". The characters are playing pieces to be built as efficiently has possible and then only constrained by the build in so much as it interacts with the rules -- and the player makes the decisions from a gameplay-first perspective.

There are a significant number of gamers who do not approach RPGs that way, however, and regard the stats as directly "mapping" the character into the rules. If the character is smart, and will make smart decisions, then they get higher "smart stats" (INT, and WIS, in D&D for example). And to those gamers, if the character has a low "smart stat", then playing them as smart in spite of it is, well, a little like cheating the system.

Of course an RPG isn't real-life simulation (unless that's deliberately the game being played). But for many gamers, the rules are trying to emulate to some degree a world-that-could-be-real, and characters-who-could-be-real-people. To them, giving a low INT to a character MEANS that the character is below average intelligence.

[Mitsu]

snip

I agree, but since that kind of playing (smacking player for actions not correlated to their stats level) is not a default rules or settings therefore approach like that should be considered a home-brew (in my opinion) and be clearly stated to players before starting playing as it's something can can either be fun for "immersion-purists" or absolute frustration for most typical players who just want to role play what they had in mind and not worry about their stats getting in their way of that.


Back to topic of cantrips. I think cantrip might be a good idea as reward to players instead of giving them those from start.

For example you could give Paladin a cantrip if they made especially heroic act that goes with their Oath (like Light cantrip for Devotion for example) or when Ranger kills especially strong enemy among his sworn ones. Just ideas.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree, but since that kind of playing (smacking player for actions not correlated to their stats level) is not a default rules or settings therefore approach like that should be considered a home-brew (in my opinion) and be clearly stated to players before starting playing as it's something can can either be fun from "immersion-purists" or absolute frustration for most typical players who just want to role play what they had in mind and not worry about their stats getting in their way of that.


It has nothing to do with "home brew", or "typical players".

To the "make the stats reflect the character" approach, if you get to a point where you're having a conflict between "role-playing what you had in mind", and the stats on the page, then there was already an error back during character creation.

[Pelle]

Of course an RPG isn't real-life simulation (unless that's deliberately the game being played). But for many gamers, the rules are trying to emulate to some degree a world-that-could-be-real, and characters-who-could-be-real-people. To them, giving a low INT to a character MEANS that the character is below average intelligence.

I think the problem with Int as an ability is that this starts to infer with the decison making of the character, reducing player agency. Making decisions for the character is specifically what they player should be doing in the game, something I at least don't want to simulate. Rolling Int is fine when the outcome of an action involving Int is uncertain, but when rolling Int starts to replace the players job of determining which decisions the character make, that's problematic. It's like the issues with alignment. Having written Chaotic Evil or Int 8 on your character sheet shouldn't prescribe which decisions you are allowed to make for your character.

I think Thrudd in the other thread has a point in that Int is best seen as an ability determining only how good you are as a wizards, not as common "intelligence". Just like Wisdom isn't "wisdom" anymore, but rather perceptiveness and some other things.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the problem with Int as an ability is that this starts to infer with the decison making of the character, reducing player agency. Making decisions for the character is specifically what they player should be doing in the game, something I at least don't want to simulate. Rolling Int is fine when the outcome of an action involving Int is uncertain, but when rolling Int starts to replace the players job of determining which decisions the character make, that's problematic. It's like the issues with alignment. Having written Chaotic Evil or Int 8 on your character sheet shouldn't prescribe which decisions you are allowed to make for your character.



First, it has nothing to do with constraining player agency -- the player had full agency when they put the low INT or the alignment on the character sheet.

If you want to play a consistently evil character, then you put an evil Alignment on the sheet --and if the GM doesn't want evil characters in a campaign, then you find another character or find another campaign.

If you want to play a character who gets special awesome powers from an Oath, you don't just slap the Oath down on the character sheet and then consistently ignore it for the entire campaign.

If you want to play a consistently smart character, then you give the character a better-than-base/average INT.


Second, from a purely "RPG as a game" POV, as someone else noted, the athletic or combat-trained player can't use their own physical abilities to substitute for giving the character those abilities in the game, but the smart player can use their own brain to substitute for giving the character the INT of a smart character -- thus letting them put those character-creation resources somewhere else and increase other abilities.


Putting a low INT down and then playing the character as a genius is exactly like putting Paladin on the sheet and then consistently having the character violate the core tenants of whatever Oath you chose, or like putting down Lawful Good to get some bennie (maybe the GM said "no evil characters in this campaign") and then consistently playing the character like a denizen of the Abyss. In each case, the player is trying to eat their cake and have it too, they're trying to squeeze things out of the character build rules without making the same trade-offs that other character builds require.

Your character can't be good at combat without investing "build stuff" in combat -- why should your character be smart without investing in "smart"?

[JoeJ]

Putting a low INT down and then playing the character as a genius is exactly like putting Paladin on the sheet and then consistently having the character violate the core tenants of whatever Oath you chose, or like putting down Lawful Good to get some bennie (maybe the GM said "no evil characters in this campaign") and then consistently playing the character like a denizen of the Abyss. In each case, the player is trying to eat their cake and have it too, they're trying to squeeze things out of the character build rules without making the same trade-offs that other character builds require.

No, it actually isn't the same. It's just refusing to expand the definition of "intelligence" to include things that the rules do not say are included. You're equating Intelligence (the game term) with intelligence (the ordinary English word), which is not justified by the rules. In game terms, a competent adult human who is a successful adventurer can have the same Intelligence (game term) as a baboon. Presuming that they have intelligence (ordinary English word) would be absurd.

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it actually isn't the same. It's just refusing to expand the definition of "intelligence" to include things that the rules do not say are included. You're equating Intelligence (the game term) with intelligence (the ordinary English word), which is not justified by the rules. In game terms, a competent adult human who is a successful adventurer can have the same Intelligence (game term) as a baboon. Presuming that they have intelligence (ordinary English word) would be absurd.

I fundamentally disagree, and it would appear the descriptions in the game's books do as well.

AFB, but start here for now.

https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/intelligence/
https://dnd5e.info/using-ability-scores/using-each-ability/
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Ability%20Scores

Are those links just dead wrong about what the 5e PHB, etc, say?

[poolio]

I know it is a game. I guess my main question is why anyone would want to create a stronger incentive to pump the INT score to begin with, which seems to be one of OP's goals.


I don't have a problem with INT dumping, that was just an observation of a byproduct by giving INT more influence mechanically, that's all,

My original intent with this question, was to try and explore game design, so far all I'm getting is how it breaks a bunch of stuff and makes other things pointless, which I'm still not really convinced it does, at least not in a horrible "well might as well never play (insert class here) again" way.

[VonKaiserstein]

Well, let's look internally for 5E at what 8 Int means for this edition. You're absolutely capable of understanding speech, and carrying out complicated commands- a skeleton is 6 Int. You could formulate intricate combat tactics to take down bigger, more dangerous foes. A wolf is 3 Int.

In fact, you are every bit as smart as a kobold- 8 Int, which means you're dumb butt should be capable of Tucker's Kobold class battle antics.

The counter, as a DM, would be to play the monsters of equivalent intelligence. If Tucker's Kobolds can do all of that with 8 int..... what can Goblins do, with 10 intelligence?

Or, for that matter, how much can the merchants fleece them once they realize they can't understand contracts, most laws, or tabs? You need situations where the characters intelligence is tested. Will the 8 int character say no to a high interest loan on that sword he needs for the dungeon? Or is he coming back to town owing more than he took from the dungeon, and thus, due to the terms of the contract, essentially becoming the merchant's slave?

[Pelle]

Your character can't be good at combat without investing "build stuff" in combat -- why should your character be smart without investing in "smart"?

Personally, I don't want "making smart decisions" to be covered by "build stuff". I want it to be a roleplaying decision made by the player. Note being smart and making smart decisions isn't completely overlapping, which is why I can accept Int as a stat. And why I think you should be careful to not let it infringe on players decision making agency.

[JoeJ]

I fundamentally disagree, and it would appear the descriptions in the game's books do as well.

AFB, but start here for now.

https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/intelligence/
https://dnd5e.info/using-ability-scores/using-each-ability/
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Ability%20Scores

Are those links just dead wrong about what the 5e PHB, etc, say?

Those quotes are exactly what I was talking about. An intelligence score has certain defined game effects. It's not a measure of competence in basic adventuring skills. The measure of adventuring competence is level, not ability score.

RAW, a non-variant human character of any class - even wizard - can have an intelligence of 4. Per the MM, that's the same intelligence as a baboon, and less than an ape. Variant human can start as low as 3 - the same intelligence as a mastiff or a cat. Yet that character, can read and write (as well as speak) at least two languages. They can advance normally in any class, although not all multiclass options are open to them, and can have proficiency in any skill or tool set. By the rules, they are not just a competent adult, but a completely viable adventurer.

[Max_Killjoy]

Those quotes are exactly what I was talking about. An intelligence score has certain defined game effects. It's not a measure of competence in basic adventuring skills. The measure of adventuring competence is level, not ability score.

RAW, a non-variant human character of any class - even wizard - can have an intelligence of 4. Per the MM, that's the same intelligence as a baboon, and less than an ape. Variant human can start as low as 3 - the same intelligence as a mastiff or a cat. Yet that character, can read and write (as well as speak) at least two languages. They can advance normally in any class, although not all multiclass options are open to them, and can have proficiency in any skill or tool set. By the rules, they are not just a competent adult, but a completely viable adventurer.


First, I have no idea how someone could get any of that from the text in the linked pages -- it doesn't appear to support any such notion.


"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason."
"An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning."


Second, I'll have to check again tonight, but from the character creation rules as I recall them out of the 5e PHB, the minimum in any stat for a PC is 8.

Third, the animal INT scores appear to be pinned to a different scale, simply poorly assigned, representing only the "animal aspects" of intelligence, or sadly representing something else entirely using the same stat.

[JoeJ]

First, I have no idea how someone could get any of that from the text in the linked pages -- it doesn't appear to support any such notion.


"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason."
"An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning."


Yes, an intelligence check. Role-playing when you're not rolling an intelligence check is not part of that. Which is a good thing, because the difference between a 10 and an 8 (to use the limit chosen by BreaktheStatue) is probably too subtle to roleplay effectively.


Second, I'll have to check again tonight, but from the character creation rules as I recall them out of the 5e PHB, the minimum in any stat for a PC is 8.

That's only the point buy variant. By the default system, there's 1 chance in 1,296 of rolling a 3. Standard human add +1 to every attribute, which bumps it up to a 4. That's only a -3 modifier, btw, which is hardly crippling.

[RSP]

Second, I'll have to check again tonight, but from the character creation rules as I recall them out of the 5e PHB, the minimum in any stat for a PC is 8.


Only in point buy or standard array. I believe rolling 4d6, drop lowest, is still the stated way to get stats with the others being additional options.

Rolling four 1’s would mean the lowest a score could be is 3.

Edit: beaten to the punch by JoeJ

[GlenSmash!]

If cantrips were available to all... I'd play another game. I already have so few options for playing a non-spellcasting character as is.

[sithlordnergal]

Hmmm, the biggest issue I can see are:

1) MAD classes become even more MAD, as players will try to have their cake and eat it too. Classes like the Monk, where all their abilities and AC are dependent on Dex and Wis, will likely feel it the worst. But this can be bypassed by allowing the players to roll for stats or increasing the points they're allowed to spend by a little.

2) Eldritch Blast spamming will become even worse. Sure, without Warlock invocations Eldritch Blast loses some of its power, but not much. It'll still be a 120ft range multiattack that does 1d10. This can be fixed by limiting all cantrips to the Wizard cantrip list.

Outside of that, I don't really see any issues. I don't think it will effect the use of Subclasses like Arcane Trickster, since the Arcane Trickster is the only subclass that can use Mage Hand to pickpocket, stow, or retrieve things from a pack without taking the Use Object action and is the only way to use one's Mage Hand as a bonus action.

As for multiclassing, again I don't think giving people Int based cantrips will effect anything. Paladins will still prefer to go Sorcerer or Warlock, since those classes have much better synergy with the Paladin, and the Sorcerer gives access to Quicken Spell.

In fact, I think having this option will give people more reason to take lesser used cantrips, like Friends or Mending.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, an intelligence check. Role-playing when you're not rolling an intelligence check is not part of that. Which is a good thing, because the difference between a 10 and an 8 (to use the limit chosen by BreaktheStatue) is probably too subtle to roleplay effectively.


So "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." just gets chucked out?

[noob]

If cantrips were available to all... I'd play another game. I already have so few options for playing a non-spellcasting character as is.

Maybe instead of having int give extra cantrips we could make int actually give something weird and mysterious called skills.(might be op since somehow some gms decides that you need to do skill checks for climbing each step of a stair or for opening each door or even for breathing)
Or maybe int instead could be the social stat against people with high int so your int would help you to convince the king adviser to change its stance?

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe instead of having int give extra cantrips we could make int actually give something weird and mysterious called skills.
Or maybe int instead could be the social stat against people with high int so your int would help you to convince the king adviser to change its stance?

The other thread referred to in the OP was mine, and that thread "INT and Cantrips" started because of late-late-night musing over the lack of benefits from INT compared to some previous editions, combined with the lack of any way to learn an additional Cantrip or two of casters that get them, combined with lack of sleep.

So yeah, those Skills and Languages things, might be nice if high INT gave an extra slot or two for those.

I wonder why the devs decided to drop that aspect of INT in 5e -- has anyone seen any comments from them on that subject?

[Thrudd]

Second, from a purely "RPG as a game" POV, as someone else noted, the athletic or combat-trained player can't use their own physical abilities to substitute for giving the character those abilities in the game, but the smart player can use their own brain to substitute for giving the character the INT of a smart character -- thus letting them put those character-creation resources somewhere else and increase other abilities.


Putting a low INT down and then playing the character as a genius is exactly like putting Paladin on the sheet and then consistently having the character violate the core tenants of whatever Oath you chose, or like putting down Lawful Good to get some bennie (maybe the GM said "no evil characters in this campaign") and then consistently playing the character like a denizen of the Abyss. In each case, the player is trying to eat their cake and have it too, they're trying to squeeze things out of the character build rules without making the same trade-offs that other character builds require.

Your character can't be good at combat without investing "build stuff" in combat -- why should your character be smart without investing in "smart"?

You aren't technically wrong, but the question when talking about "game" is always - what exactly is "the game"? Is it mainly an acting game, where the numbers tell you how to portray the character in different situations? Is it mainly a problem solving/challenge game where the numbers describe what tactical resources a character has to address challenge scenarios? I think D&D is and always has been more the latter than the former, regardless of what the writers put in the book. Welcome to D&D, where the explanatory text doesn't always line up with the mechanical facts of the game.

An RPG is some of both, of course, but I think in general one of these POVs is going to be dominant over the other. What you say about the intelligence score is absolutely correct for an acting-centered game. It doesn't matter if the player knows their character will suffer consequences or can clearly perceive answers to questions in the scenario - because they have chosen to play a low-intelligence character they are going to act like a dummy and must, voluntarily or not, have their actions restricted. In such as game, you would expect the mechanics to somehow enforce this behavior or reward properly acting what is on the sheet. D&D doesn't do this in any direct or meaningful way. If the game is a problem-solving game, then you expect the stats to represent access to different tools and resources the player can use to overcome challenges.

In D&D, the logistics of mechanically enforcing the intelligence score as actual mental acuity would create a big problem. At this point, it is basically only used for things like "did you find a hidden thing" or "do you know anything about that creature over there", and maybe for disseminating helpful background information about the setting.

But to treat it like actual intelligence, you'd need to gate all decisions of the players behind intelligence checks - like "do we go left or right? The old guy in the cave told us to go right."
DM- "But are you smart enough to remember what the old guy said? Roll intelligence check"
-1-
DM- "oh, sorry. Your character can't remember what the old guy said. Roll a d6, 1-3 you go left, 4-6 you go right."
or even worse "your character remembers it wrong. You think he said go left, so that's what you do."

or vice-versa "I can't remember what the old guy said. But my character is really smart, so he would remember."
DM- "ok, intelligence check" -20- "yep, your character knows he said to go right."

More reasonable might be that there is no mechanical enforcement, but the DM gives awards or inspiration whenever the players act properly even when it isn't in their characters' best interest (similar to Fate) - like - "I know we're supposed to go right, but my character is a dummy so he goes left instead"

DM: "congratulations, you get 50xp for roleplaying your INT score, and have an inspiration die."
This is how you'd want an author-stance, acting-centered RPG to proceed, I'd think.

For a challenge-focused game, expecting or forcing players to make decisions they know to be sub-optimal or even plainly wrong and dangerous for their characters is backwards. Having a low mental score may make certain strategies for your character less viable, restrict them from certain resources (like spells, socially influencing NPC's, getting hints from the DM about monster weaknesses). The player and character both will make the best decisions they know how to make using the resources they have at their disposal to deal with challenges - but they shouldn't have to second guess their decisions or have them restricted further than the system mechanics call for.

The benefit for choosing a high INT in D&D isn't that your character gets to act like a genius (which would be impossible anyway, if you aren't yourself a genius). If it worked that way, INT would be the god stat, not the dump stat - just max it out, and then the DM should tell you whenever you're making a bad choice and reveal all the stuff your character knows that you don't and give you the answer to every conundrum which your genius character should obviously be able to figure out.

There is obviously some middle-ground - There is some acting that goes on, even when the game is challenge-focused, and players are expected to take some guidance from their ability scores (as well as their background, alignment, personality traits) in how they depict the character, and the DM can give a minor benefit for good acting (inspiration). But as the game is ultimately about life-and-death situations for the characters, and players are rewarded for keeping their characters alive against deadly challenges, I don't think it is expected that players ever make poor decisions for their characters on purpose. Of course, some people like to do that anyway, but that's their prerogative.

[poolio]

If cantrips were available to all... I'd play another game. I already have so few options for playing a non-spellcasting character as is.

Not everyone would have them, it's just a reason to try and get your INT to a positive modifier, i don't think a barbarian that needs STR, DEX, CON, and possibly a decent WIS for survival and CHA for making the mean faces would go out of their way to be able to toss a little fire around or make pretty lights flash about.

[JoeJ]

So "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." just gets chucked out?

Of course not. That's the overview that is then explained in detail in the immediately following section about how the ability is used.

[Max_Killjoy]

Of course not. That's the overview that is then explained in detail in the immediately following section about how the ability is used.

I don't consider it an overview, I consider at least an opening to an ambiguity that lets different tables do things differently, and at most a direct statement of the intent behind the Ability scores. And as such, the very absolute statements made earlier that "INT is just game mechanic that shouldn't affect roleplaying and doesn't mean anything beyond its mechanical impact" (paraphrasing) is unjustifiable.

And beyond that, I've run into two many players who are "high X" but "low Y" in real life -- so they give their character a high Y stat and want the benefit from it, while at the same time a low X stat and expect to be able to ignore it by using their own X instead. They want one high Ability to override their own shortcoming and take precedence, while they expect the other low Ability to NOT override their own greater ability in that area and NOT take precedence. And that double standard irks the hell out of me.

[LibraryOgre]

Consider it from the other angle...

Assume that anyone can learn cantrips. They're relatively common in the society. How does this change society?

[Max_Killjoy]

Even the middle-ground of "only those with class levels get free Cantrips" might have quite an impact on the society in question, from a world-building perspective.

[Thrudd]

I don't consider it an overview, I consider at least an opening to an ambiguity that lets different tables do things differently, and at most a direct statement of the intent behind the Ability scores. And as such, the very absolute statements made earlier that "INT is just game mechanic that shouldn't affect roleplaying and doesn't mean anything beyond its mechanical impact" (paraphrasing) is unjustifiable.

And beyond that, I've run into two many players who are "high X" but "low Y" in real life -- so they give their character a high Y stat and want the benefit from it, while at the same time a low X stat and expect to be able to ignore it by using their own X instead. They want one high Ability to override their own shortcoming and take precedence, while they expect the other low Ability to NOT override their own greater ability in that area and NOT take precedence. And that double standard irks the hell out of me.

It is an ambiguity, and 5e has a ton of leeway for people to use the rules how they want and support a wide range of styles. But unless someone is going to homebrew something regarding the enforcement of roleplaying mental ability scores in certain ways - like outlining certain acceptable and unacceptable behaviors depending on your levels of INT, WIS and CHA - or providing rules that allow the DM to override or take control of characters when their players are acting what they consider out of character - the game doesn't actually require players to interpret a low intelligence score in any specific way. There are no rules which stops a player from figuring out the DM's puzzles, for instance, or recognizing an obvious trap, regardless of what their characters' ability scores are.

The double standard you're talking about mostly comes up regarding social skills, ime. Really smart player, no social skills, or vice versa. And that is an easy thing to take out of the players' hands. The game mechanizes social interaction, just like it does physical interaction. Although the player can choose to act out their character's interactions with NPCs and might be very well spoken and convincing to the DM or the other players, there is still a clear mechanic for resolving their attempts at persuasion. There is no punishment for a player's actual skill being out-of-sync with their character's (other than the character failing and the player not getting what they wanted.) If the player tries to do anything of consequence for their character through socializing, it is mechanized, and any real-life fast talking ability is just window dressing.

This leaves intelligence - player intelligence - as the only player attribute that matters while playing the game. So there's no real double standard. Smart and perceptive players will do better in a game, and that's how it always is and is supposed to be. It is the means by which games are played, players thinking about the scenario and making decisions, figuring out how to solve problems. It therefore can't be mechanized beyond the types of things the game rules suggest - character trying to recall information about creatures, seeing if the character can identify a spell or a symbol or language, win a game of chess within the game- but not affect or control a player's decisions in regards to combat tactics or perceiving patterns and puzzles presented by the DM or figuring out the best course of action for their character in general, not forcing or expecting them to take actions that will obviously (to the player) hurt their character or the other characters. So a highly intelligent player who chooses a low intelligence character shouldn't be forced to pretend they can't figure out your dungeon puzzle or recognize a potential ambush site. Their play and tactics are inhibited by not getting spells or having effective spells, not getting extra background info from the DM about the setting and monsters, not being able to rely on their character winning a game of chess or poker. They might choose to act as though they are slow to figure things out, use a limited vocabulary, as acting nods to their character's attribute score - but they don't need to do anything more consequential than that.

[JoeJ]

And beyond that, I've run into two many players who are "high X" but "low Y" in real life -- so they give their character a high Y stat and want the benefit from it, while at the same time a low X stat and expect to be able to ignore it by using their own X instead. They want one high Ability to override their own shortcoming and take precedence, while they expect the other low Ability to NOT override their own greater ability in that area and NOT take precedence. And that double standard irks the hell out of me.

Unless X or Y is strength, you can't actually compare the player's ability to the character's because there are no benchmarks to say what, for example, an intelligence or 8 or a charisma of 13 looks like in real world terms. But without knowing whether the player's ability is actually higher or lower than the number written on the character sheet, you're upset because they're role-playing their abilities "wrong."

The DM decides when an ability check is called for. As long as the player is applying the correct modifier when the check is rolled, I don't see how there could be a problem.

[Max_Killjoy]

Unless X or Y is strength, you can't actually compare the player's ability to the character's because there are no benchmarks to say what, for example, an intelligence or 8 or a charisma of 13 looks like in real world terms. But without knowing whether the player's ability is actually higher or lower than the number written on the character sheet, you're upset because they're role-playing their abilities "wrong."

The DM decides when an ability check is called for. As long as the player is applying the correct modifier when the check is rolled, I don't see how there could be a problem.


Player has a real-life shortcoming, so they put a high score in that for the character, and expect to that high score to allow them to "roll" their way out of the real-life shortcoming. Player has a real-life strength, so they put a low score in that for the character, and expect to be able to ignore that low score as if it didn't exist by using their real-life advantage in that area. They want opposite standards to apply depending on what benefits them the most.

First, it's a double-standard -- it's hypocritical.
Second, it's gaming the system to get more build resources out of it. It's like taking a Flaw in an oWoD system, or a Disad in HERO, and then constantly trying to get around it ever taking effect. It's cheating.
Third, it's lopsided -- other players can't dump-stat STR or DEX and then use their own athletic ability to make up for it.
Fourth, it's just plain poor roleplaying.

If a player put an 6 in STR and then constantly insisted that their character could tear trees out of the ground and throw boulders, no one would let that fly.

If the player put a 6 in DEX, and then constantly insisted that their character is a tight-rope-walking ballroom dancer, no one would let that fly.

But for some reason, if they put a 6 in INT, and then constantly played the character like someone used the recovered genes of Sherlock Holmes and Albert Einstein to create a superbaby that then grew up receiving the best education ever devised... some gamers don't have a problem with that.

[JoeJ]

Player has a real-life shortcoming, so they put a high score in that for the character, and expect to that high score to allow them to "roll" their way out of the real-life shortcoming. Player has a real-life strength, so they put a low score in that for the character, and expect to be able to ignore that low score as if it didn't exist by using their real-life advantage in that area. They want opposite standards to apply depending on what benefits them the most.

First, it's a double-standard -- it's hypocritical.
Second, it's gaming the system to get more build resources out of it. It's like taking a Flaw in an oWoD system, or a Disad in HERO, and then constantly trying to get around it ever taking effect. It's cheating.
Third, it's lopsided -- other players can't dump-stat STR or DEX and then use their own athletic ability to make up for it.
Fourth, it's just plain poor roleplaying.

If a player put an 6 in STR and then constantly insisted that their character could tear trees out of the ground and throw boulders, no one would let that fly.

If the player put a 6 in DEX, and then constantly insisted that their character is a tight-rope-walking ballroom dancer, no one would let that fly.

But for some reason, if they put a 6 in INT, and then constantly played the character like someone used the recovered genes of Sherlock Holmes and Albert Einstein to create a superbaby that then grew up receiving the best education ever devised... some gamers don't have a problem with that.

IOW they're playing by the rules. Their character's low intelligence hinders then when the rules say that it does - when they make an intelligence ability check or intelligence save. Things that can be done without a die roll the do without a die roll. There's absolutely nothing dishonest or hypocritical or otherwise wrong with what you're describing.

You claim, incorrectly, that no one would accept a player narrating their character as a tightrope walking ballroom dancer if they have a dexterity of 6. As long as they apply the correct modifier every time they make a die roll, they can narrate whatever they want for the things that don't require a roll. Maybe they're as agile as Spiderman normally, but just suffer extreme bad luck in stressful situations. There's no One True Way to roleplay any character, and no good reason to get upset if somebody else isn't choosing to play their character the way you would play that character.

[Max_Killjoy]

IOW they're playing by the rules. Their character's low intelligence hinders then when the rules say that it does - when they make an intelligence ability check or intelligence save. Things that can be done without a die roll the do without a die roll. There's absolutely nothing dishonest or hypocritical or otherwise wrong with what you're describing.

You claim, incorrectly, that no one would accept a player narrating their character as a tightrope walking ballroom dancer if they have a dexterity of 6. As long as they apply the correct modifier every time they make a die roll, they can narrate whatever they want for the things that don't require a roll. Maybe they're as agile as Spiderman normally, but just suffer extreme bad luck in stressful situations. There's no One True Way to roleplay any character, and no good reason to get upset if somebody else isn't choosing to play their character the way you would play that character.

"Very agile, but just happens to have two left feet whenever there's an actual roll required."

Right...

I might let a player get away with that if they set up their character as pathologically delusional, or suffering from the worst case of Dunning-Krueger ever. It might just be one of the most ridiculous attempts I've ever seen at trying to bifurcate the layers of an RPG.

[JoeJ]

"Very agile, but just happens to have two left feet whenever there's an actual roll required."

Right...

I might let a player get away with that if they set up their character as pathologically delusional, or suffering from the worst case of Dunning-Krueger ever. It might just be one of the most ridiculous attempts I've ever seen at trying to bifurcate the layers of an RPG.

Or maybe they just choke under pressure. That might make for a very entertaining character, in fact.

Your phrase "let a player get away with that" makes it sound like you think it's your job as DM to tell players how to roleplay their characters, and I don't agree with that.

[BreaktheStatue]

Or maybe they just choke under pressure. That might make for a very entertaining character, in fact.

Your phrase "let a player get away with that" makes it sound like you think it's your job as DM to tell players how to roleplay their characters, and I don't agree with that.

This probably just needs to be chalked up to an irreconcilable difference. I'm all for fun and player agency, but I also trust the players to have the integrity to accept the trade-offs of the choices they make when they build their characters. If they don't, there's no reason to play with them, and they probably won't enjoy playing with me. That's about all I have to say on that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Or maybe they just choke under pressure. That might make for a very entertaining character, in fact.

Your phrase "let a player get away with that" makes it sound like you think it's your job as DM to tell players how to roleplay their characters, and I don't agree with that.



It's my job as a GM to make sure everyone is playing by the rules -- as in not getting stuff for free, and not dodging the tradeoffs they made in character creation. And it's the height of irony to defend not playing the character as built as "roleplaying" and fig-leafing that behind "player agency".

What you're suggesting is the same as letting a character without any spellcasting class levels, cast spells, because we're not supposed to "tell the player how to play his character". Or taking all Wizard levels and then demanding to also use heavy armor, shield, and greatsword, "because that's how I want to play my character". Or letting a player dump-stat CHA on their PC, and then play a suave charmer using their own social aptitude.

"Oh, he's really charming, he just fails miserably whenever a roll comes up, for reasons." :smallconfused: It's like the horrible writing in TV shows where we're constantly told what an awesome fighter someone is, but whenever there's an actual fight, they get their butt kicked and then handed to them, in a bag made from their ruined self-respect... for reasons.


If you want to play a spellcaster, then take levels in a spellcasting class, or MI, or RC, or some combo.
If you want to play a skilled swordfighter, then invest in things that make the character better at swordfighting.
If you want to play a strong character, invest in STR.
If you want to play a charming character, invest in CHA.

And if you want to play a smart character, invest in INT.

That's "play" as in the mechanical layer, and "play" as in the roleplaying/"fiction" layer, which need to be in sync.


Don't show up at my table, with INT as a dump stat, so that you can have more whatever somewhere else on the character, and expect to get away with ignoring that tradeoff by having the character consistently by the planner and problem solver of the bunch... and really don't expect to get away with "but that's how I want to roleplay my character" as a cheap excuse.

The few people who tried to get away with that sort of thing at tables I've played or GMed at were consistently ribbed about it by the other players, the GM rarely even had to say anything. And rightfully so.




This probably just needs to be chalked up to an irreconcilable difference.


Perhaps so.




I'm all for fun and player agency, but I also trust the players to have the integrity to accept the trade-offs of the choices they make when they build their characters. If they don't, there's no reason to play with them, and they probably won't enjoy playing with me. That's about all I have to say on that.


Indeed. Player agency extends back to the first moment of character creation, and it's not a violation of player agency to expect someone to have created the character they intended to play.

[JoeJ]

It's my job as a GM to make sure everyone is playing by the rules

You mean your house rules, I assume?


What you're suggesting is the same as letting a character without any spellcasting class levels, cast spells, because we're not supposed to "tell the player how to play his character". Or taking all Wizard levels and then demanding to also use heavy armor, shield, and greatsword, "because that's how I want to play my character".

How is that even remotely comparable? The rules specify the requirements for casting spells and for using weapons and armor. Which rule gives the minimum intelligence score to make plans, or solve puzzles? RAW, what exactly is a character with an intelligence of 8 smart enough to do?


Don't show up at my table, with INT as a dump stat, so that you can have more whatever somewhere else on the character, and expect to get away with ignoring that tradeoff by having the character consistently by the planner and problem solver of the bunch... and really don't expect to get away with "but that's how I want to roleplay my character" as a cheap excuse.

Thanks for the warning. I assume you have in your house rules some sort of list describing what each level of intelligence, wisdom, and charisma enables the PC do do. Which is fine for your game. At my table, I have no such rule.

[sithlordnergal]

Don't show up at my table, with INT as a dump stat, so that you can have more whatever somewhere else on the character, and expect to get away with ignoring that tradeoff by having the character consistently by the planner and problem solver of the bunch... and really don't expect to get away with "but that's how I want to roleplay my character" as a cheap excuse.


So, I have a question then. How do you prevent a player from being the planner or problem solver? I mean, if you give the party a puzzle, and the player using the character who dumped int immediately knows how to solve it, do you change the puzzle ? Do you say they can't solve it anyway?

How about planner/strategist? If the low int player comes up with a solid plan to deal with a thing in or out of combat, do you purposely go out of your way to make it not work?

Do you mind if the player with the dump stat tells the rest of the party how to solve it, then the players RP one of the "smarter" players solving it?

I mean, I'm not even sure how you would stop that or prevent it.


EDIT: Also, how do you run spells like Polymorph? A player's int drops to below three. Do you somehow punish them if they work efficiently and strategically with the party? I.E. say they polymorph into a Giant Ape. Are they still allowed to be the main tank? Can they dodge and retreat when needed? How would you even prevent the player from taking these actions? Outside of stopping combat altogether and forcing the player to redo their turn to something more "suitable"?

[langal]

Give an xp penalty for low intelligence. Nothing big but an 8 intelligence is below average and such a person would require more time and repetition to learn something.

A xp bonus for high intelligence would probably unduly reward wizards.

The option to include intelligence for initiative could also make sense. This would apply to monsters as well.

[Kalashak]

The difference is that a naturally dexterous player can't leverage their IRL personal dexterity to offset the mechanical shortcomings they've baked into their character.
That's not true, they could use it to cheat their die rolls :smalltongue:

[sithlordnergal]

Give an xp penalty for low intelligence. Nothing big but an 8 intelligence is below average and such a person would require more time and repetition to learn something.

A xp bonus for high intelligence would probably unduly reward wizards.

The option to include intelligence for initiative could also make sense. This would apply to monsters as well.

Sooo...this is a terrible idea. While it does make Intelligence essential for every character, doing it through an Exp penalty is not a good idea at all. Not even getting into how it might make players resentful, but it also causes MAD characters to be even more MAD if they want to avoid a penalty, it'll make players who do max out Int question why they don't get a bonus for having high Int, and if you want the penalty to have any sort of real impact then whatever player dumped Int is simply going to fall further and further behind the party.

For example, lets say you award the party 25 exp, and have a 5 exp penalty. You give this same reward until level 4. Not realistic, I know, but it keeps the numbers easy. To get to level 4, you'll play through 108 encounters. That player with the 5 exp penalty will have lost a total of 540 exp. They'll be at level 3 with 2,160 exp while the rest of the party is at level 4 with 2,700 exp.

To reach level 5 the party needs 3,800 more exp. So you boost the exp rewards to 50. Now they only need 76 encounters to get to level 5. But wait, the player with the penalty needs 4,340 to catch up to the party, but they only get 45 exp per encounter. The penalized player needs approximately 96.4 encounters to reach level 5. Lets round up to 97, cause we are keeping things as simple as possible and you can't have .4 of an encounter. That player will need 21 more encounters to reach level 5.

That gap will just keep growing and growing. And you're gonna have a fun time balancing for that player. Now sure, you can say "oh, the player shouldn't have dumped Int then". My response to you is "I hope you enjoy the entire party of Half Elves, High Elves, and Humans". Cause no-one is gonna take a race that can't give them the required Int to avoid the exp penalty. And guess what, your dump stat issue isn't fixed, it just moves to a different stat.


Here is my suggestion for all you DMs who don't like Int being dumped. Instead of giving a penalty, give the players a small reward. Cap out ability scores at 17, so the max ability mod a player can have is +3, then give them extra language, tool, or skill proficiencies based on their modifier. If the modifier is -1 or 0, then they don't get the extra stuff.

This will discourage players from dumping Intelligence without giving players a penalty. Or at the very least, it won't feel like a penalty, which is the most important part.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Give an xp penalty for low intelligence. Nothing big but an 8 intelligence is below average and such a person would require more time and repetition to learn something.

A xp bonus for high intelligence would probably unduly reward wizards.

The option to include intelligence for initiative could also make sense. This would apply to monsters as well.

I think the worst part about this idea is that even though an 8 intelligence is only very marginally worse than a 10 you would be exponentially punishing a player the farther into a campaign they progress for only being very slightly under the average intelligence of a human. Encouraging this type of solution is near as bad as trying to convince people that an 8 intelligence is so far below the average that your ability to plan against your own death is too much cognitive effort.

As a side note, adding intelligence to your initiative is a class feature of the War Wizard school so I would advise against that as well. I'll repeat again that I think a simple solution is to require proficiency in a skill rather than require them to have invested in the intelligence stat. An 8 Intelligence character can often roll higher than a 14 intelligence character due to proficiency.

[langal]

Xp penalties have been used in other games for optimized race/options. Even something as egregious as a 10 percent penalty would make someone less than a level behind. Old DnD actually gave xp bonuses for high stats. Party members were still largely the same level regardless. If a penalty discourages blatant min-maxing (which hurts the rp aspects of the game IMO), then I would try it out.

[Pelle]

Player has a real-life shortcoming, so they put a high score in that for the character, and expect to that high score to allow them to "roll" their way out of the real-life shortcoming. Player has a real-life strength, so they put a low score in that for the character, and expect to be able to ignore that low score as if it didn't exist by using their real-life advantage in that area. They want opposite standards to apply depending on what benefits them the most.


I think you are assuming too much intent on others' behalf here.



If a player put an 6 in STR and then constantly insisted that their character could tear trees out of the ground and throw boulders, no one would let that fly.


They are certainly allowed to try, although they may very likely fail the Str check.



If the player put a 6 in DEX, and then constantly insisted that their character is a tight-rope-walking ballroom dancer, no one would let that fly.


They are certainly allowed to try, although they may very likely fail the Dex check.



But for some reason, if they put a 6 in INT, and then constantly played the character like someone used the recovered genes of Sherlock Holmes and Albert Einstein to create a superbaby that then grew up receiving the best education ever devised... some gamers don't have a problem with that.

They are certainly allowed to try, although they may very likely fail if what they are trying will require an Int check.

For me the game is about being allowed to make any decision. The stats on your sheet only tells you how likely you are to succeed. And sometimes the players make bad roleplaying decisions, I agree. Sometimes they do a bad job, for example by not convincingly explaining how the 8 Int character comes up with a smart plan, but the game will not become more fun for anyone by policing their decisions. To me though, the game is the most fun when players are free to decide how they want to portray their character. Yes, the game experience would likely be better if players roleplay their stats better, but that's just a lost opportunity, not something that needs to be regulated.



It's my job as a GM to make sure everyone is playing by the rules -- as in not getting stuff for free, and not dodging the tradeoffs they made in character creation. And it's the height of irony to defend not playing the character as built as "roleplaying" and fig-leafing that behind "player agency".


I don't think that's your job as a GM, it's everyone's job. You can lay out which rules you want people to follow in your game, and they can decide if they want to follow them. I'm at least not defending not playing the character as built as "roleplaying", I'm defending that players should have the opportunity to decide to roleplay badly.



Indeed. Player agency extends back to the first moment of character creation, and it's not a violation of player agency to expect someone to have created the character they intended to play.

No, it's not. But if you have a very different idea of what character the player thinks he created, by having different views of what the Int ability represents and applies to, you can be violating the agency when you start policing the decisions the player wants to make.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Xp penalties have been used in other games for optimized race/options. Even something as egregious as a 10 percent penalty would make someone less than a level behind. Old DnD actually gave xp bonuses for high stats. Party members were still largely the same level regardless. If a penalty discourages blatant min-maxing (which hurts the rp aspects of the game IMO), then I would try it out.

There are two problems with applying an XP penalty, one for each of the methods available for leveling in the DMG.

Rewarding XP: The XP Calculation is split evenly among the participating members of the party. No matter how you look at it if you're penalizing only part of the group the entire party is still losing XP overall because their "idiot" has taken his even share of the whole and just thrown part of it away.

Milestone Progression: Milestones can be pretty far apart and that's even depending on whether your Milestones are set to grant an amount of XP or simply a level. In either case, this runs the risk of setting our "idiot" behind multiple sessions of progress.

This edition of DND isn't designed with penalties like that in mind.

Again, if you're equating an 8 intelligence to be an incredible step down from a 10, I would wager that you're the one who's hurting the RP aspects of the game. It's pretty amazing that those 8 intelligence Kobolds can make efficient use of their Pack Tactics and actually follow commands considering how developmentally challenged they are. Even more amazing is that they're described as "cunning trap makers" which should be well and truly impossible for them.

I do also feel the need to point out though that I don't think a level difference is a huge penalty, I just think that using this sort of penalty as a solution for a perceived problem is unnecessary.

[Max_Killjoy]

You mean your house rules, I assume?


No, I mean the rules.

If you want to play a smart character, build a smart character -- don't build a sub-average character, put the "build resources" into something else, and then ignore what you did in character creation.

You seem to have this notion that the Abilities are only definitive and limiting in so much as they directly affect mechanical effects, and that anything not explicitly and painfully spelled out leaves you space to do whatever you want, even if it's in direct contradiction of everything expressed or implied by the mechanics.

You're effectively claiming that if a system has no rules for jumping, then the player should be free to assert that their PC can leap 10 miles straight up. After all there's "no rules linking Strong or Agile in Hypothetical RPG to how high you can jump." I suppose a GM who expected your PC's jumps to be linked to your Strong or Agile in that system would be "house ruling" and "interfering with how you envision the character"? :smallconfused:

Telling a player with a low-INT character to stop playing a genius isn't telling them how to play their character -- they did that themselves when they decided to build an idiot PC.

[n00b]

Ability scores should mean something. I have a problem with the player who has a char that dumped Int or some other stat being able to do things in a meaningful way that pertain to that stat. So yeah, if the Barbarian who dumped Int is the puzzle solving genius then that's an issue for me.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I would suggest that the "Player ability v. Character ability" and "What do ability scores REALLY mean" discussions go elsewhere. They have ceased to be germane about the topic at hand.

[poolio]

The Mod Wonder: I would suggest that the "Player ability v. Character ability" and "What do ability scores REALLY mean" discussions go elsewhere. They have ceased to be germane about the topic at hand.

Good lord thank you lol this simple question has just spiraled into something completely different then what i expected.

[LibraryOgre]

So, playing with this, because I'm intrigued by it.

First of all, the feat Ritual Caster is removed from the game; more properly, it is subsumed into the rule below.

Instead, a class Ritual Book is made a Tool with which one can choose to be proficient. Proficiency in a Ritual book also allows you to learn cantrips from the class, up to your Casting Stat Bonus or the number allowed to a 1st level character, whichever is less. Want your Fighter to have a bit of a sorcerous background? You can get proficiency in the Sorcerer Ritual Book. Your thief a tiny bit holy? Cleric Ritual Book proficiency. This proficiency functions like the Ritual Caster feat, but comes in at a lower cost, making it more available.

Rather than giving "everyone spells", it makes spells, at least at the level of ritual magic, much more commonplace.

EDIT: Oh, wow, this option would do powerful things to a cleric with the knowledge domain.

[poolio]

So, playing with this, because I'm intrigued by it.

First of all, the feat Ritual Caster is removed from the game; more properly, it is subsumed into the rule below.

Instead, a class Ritual Book is made a Tool with which one can choose to be proficient. Proficiency in a Ritual book also allows you to learn cantrips from the class, up to your Casting Stat Bonus or the number allowed to a 1st level character, whichever is less. Want your Fighter to have a bit of a sorcerous background? You can get proficiency in the Sorcerer Ritual Book. Your thief a tiny bit holy? Cleric Ritual Book proficiency. This proficiency functions like the Ritual Caster feat, but comes in at a lower cost, making it more available.

Rather than giving "everyone spells", it makes spells, at least at the level of ritual magic, much more commonplace.

EDIT: Oh, wow, this option would do powerful things to a cleric with the knowledge domain.

I still don't think it would make magic initate useless or obsolete, same with multiclassing,

say a fighter has INT 10-11 so a +0 modifier, no cantrips, levels up and gets first ASI or a feat, now would you boost INT for a +1 gaining 1 cantrip? Or take the feat and get two as well as a 1st level a day?

Same with multiclassing, if you're multiclassing just for a few cantrips then that just doesn't make sense to me, wouldn't you like this option to get one maybe two cantrips without having to bog down your main class progression or spending a feat?

[thereaper]

The OP's idea is interesting, but carries certain problems. I think, if it was a certain list of cantrips, it might work out. For example, Mending and Thaumaturgy might be available, but not Booming Blade or Guidance.

[Citan]

Certain subclasses become far less attractive; the big class feature of Arcane Trickster is an invisible Mage Hand, and I don't think the cantrip version being visible is a big enough difference that people would keep playing ATs.

Having cantrips is something that makes magical classes special, in the same way that multi-attack makes martials special.
Hmm. I have the opposite thought actually. Having an invisible Mage Hand really makes a very big difference in how many more situations you can use it with a highly positive risk/benefit ratio.

Simply said, the fact it's invisible means you can try all kind of things that would be viewed as hostile by other people with no risk of being revealed, unless there is a caster watching you, or you just cast the cantrip in front of everyone (but since it's invisible, you can perfectly cast it from a "hidden" position then enter a room with it along without anybody noticing, contrarily to Mage Hand).
Like the obvious Sleight of Hand: creature feels something lurking in pocket? Dismiss immediately.
You'd like to frame a guy? Use hand to slip something in bag/pocket before accusing him. "Hey, it's not me, I never stole that, someone put it to frame me". "Yeah, and who? You've been under watch nobody came close to you since the theft".
You need a distraction? Get the hand to start a fire, drop an object loudly, lock/open a door...

Of course, you could just get Invisibility some way and use it o a regular Mage Hand when you really need it to, but I suppose I don't need to explain why this is bothering and a bad cost/benefit ratio right?
You can also make do with tricks such as casting the Mage Hand from a "hidden" position, then putting it under mantle and manage to walk towards your objective while keeping it in sync (a bit DM dependent but overall should work smoothly).
Or you could have a nice DM that rules you can actually grasp your own hand and carry it, which would solve most problems as long as you can carry a big mantle / cape or anything else that can hide things.
As you see though, there are some constraints. And whatever happens, when you actually use the Mage Hand, it's visible! It will be more difficult to retrieve an object and have hand bring it back without being noticed.

With Invisible Mage Hand, ways to identify you are limited: by RAW you don't even need to move hand or say something to control hand, because nothing is specified. Even if a DM rules it is logical that you need to move your hand to reflect movements on the Mage Hand, you can simply make the movements while keeping arm under mantle. So unless a trouble happens, since people cannot see the hand, only ways to detect it would be highly perceptive creature per DM rule (air movement, sound you would make when manipulating something) or Detect Magic.
I'm not even sure how one DM should rule what happens if an enemy casts Detect Magic and both you and Mage Hand are in the area. IMO, RAW he should only detect the Mage Hand, but there should not be any magical aura or link from you to hand. So nothing to make the association. Meaning that to be discovered the following requirements would need to be met cumulatively:
- someone has Detect Magic.
- someone friendly from first has enough arcane knowledge to know how Mage Hand works and as such knows about the distance limitation.
- you are the only one in the vicinity, or at least the only one other people are not sure of / don't know about.

[Ventruenox]

Back in 2E, they did pull this concept off fairly successfully, with Halruaa (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Halruaa) in the Forgotten Realms. While the lore got convoluted with shipping between systems (and doesn't it always?), having a high magic region to explore has amazing narrative potential. Allowing PCs a bit of a power boost can always be balanced in other respects. It does require the DM to modify challenges and makes that role more difficult, but no more so than a Monty Haul campaign with magic items would require adaptation.

I would be interested in hearing how 5E Eberron DMs have had to improvise their scenarios for their PCs. It's not exactly the same as the current discussion, but could provide a good starting direction.

[alienblind]

Best way to get A LOT of cantrips:
Warlock Human
Magic Initiate Feat
Then Take Pact of the Tome @ lvl 3

You will end up with 9 cantrips!!!

I did this with my Warlock and yes Eldricth Blast is a great attack, but the versitility of attack types now make me fun to play. Especially since our druid can cast spike growth. I have 2 cantrips that make the Mobs move thru the spikes. EXTRA DMG!!!

[Citan]

Best way to get A LOT of cantrips:
Warlock Human
Magic Initiate Feat
Then Take Pact of the Tome @ lvl 3

You will end up with 9 cantrips!!!

I did this with my Warlock and yes Eldricth Blast is a great attack, but the versitility of attack types now make me fun to play. Especially since our druid can cast spike growth. I have 2 cantrips that make the Mobs move thru the spikes. EXTRA DMG!!!
Even better: be a regular Human, 14 all around, pick one level in each caster class, then resume Warlock ^^

[Max_Killjoy]

At least I found multiple confirmations online that the "level" for Cantrip scaling is character level, and not class level. Given how some other things work for casting and other class features... I wasn't sure, and it would have made Cantrips yet another aspect that didn't work with multiclassing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Isn't there a feat which makes some cantrips available, regardless of your class? Yes. Magic Initiate.
EDIT:
Oops, missed that this thing had gone three pages.

[DracoKnight]

Sure, the Arcane Trickster isn't the highest damage build, but it already dominates nearly any RP/utility event, and giving them more cantrips will just make them even better.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed by someone else, but when you take into consideration both the Booming Blade (cantrip, taken at 3rd level), and Shadow Blade (2nd-level Illusion available at 7th level) spells, they actually have some of the highest consistent damage amongst rogues. They can cast Shadow Blade 8 times a day if they need to, and it creates a finesse weapon. My Tabaxi Arcane Trickster who made it to 20th level did something like 67 damage a round on average.

[D-naras]

So, playing with this, because I'm intrigued by it.

First of all, the feat Ritual Caster is removed from the game; more properly, it is subsumed into the rule below.

Instead, a class Ritual Book is made a Tool with which one can choose to be proficient. Proficiency in a Ritual book also allows you to learn cantrips from the class, up to your Casting Stat Bonus or the number allowed to a 1st level character, whichever is less. Want your Fighter to have a bit of a sorcerous background? You can get proficiency in the Sorcerer Ritual Book. Your thief a tiny bit holy? Cleric Ritual Book proficiency. This proficiency functions like the Ritual Caster feat, but comes in at a lower cost, making it more available.

Rather than giving "everyone spells", it makes spells, at least at the level of ritual magic, much more commonplace.

EDIT: Oh, wow, this option would do powerful things to a cleric with the knowledge domain.

That's a great idea for a high magic setting. I am a big fan of ritual magic and how 5e handles it and this houserule works wonders for giving mundanes a bit of flavorful utility. I might just steal it for my next game.

[BreaktheStatue]

At least I found multiple confirmations online that the "level" for Cantrip scaling is character level, and not class level. Given how some other things work for casting and other class features... I wasn't sure, and it would have made Cantrips yet another aspect that didn't work with multiclassing.

Yeah, it's one of the reasons that warlock dips (for EB) are so tempting.

[deljzc]

I just want to make sure I understand Cantrips as written.

The only way to gain cantrips is off your class chart as you gain levels and you can pick any cantrip you qualify for (your choice).

Are cantrips spells in a spell book? Can you copy cantrips from found spell books and then choose the ones you want to use between long rests? Or are you restricted to ONLY the # known and that's it. And there really isn't a written record of cantrips at all. It's just something you know and can cast at will as many times in a row as you want.

Is this correct?

I understand there are certain class specialties that also grant additional cantrips, but that's not part of this.

[LibraryOgre]

That's a great idea for a high magic setting. I am a big fan of ritual magic and how 5e handles it and this houserule works wonders for giving mundanes a bit of flavorful utility. I might just steal it for my next game.

Looking through the spell list, I feel they didn't make ENOUGH use of the Ritual tag.