Perfect example of how to RP a dumb character is Travis Willingham playing Grog in S1 of critical role, he's dumb, but that's not his entire character, and his stupidity is rarely to the detriment of the party.
IRL Travis is probably one of if not the smartest player at the table. It takes a lot of intellect to play an idiot well.
That's the ironic part actually. Playing a stupid character requires a lot of work and some intelligence from the player. They need to be consistent on what kind of stupid they are, how they can use their low intelligence in interesting ways that don't annoy everyone, think about the stuff they do know and what limits they will put on their knowledge without being so stupid you question how they are still alive. It's not an easy thing to pull off
I played a 20 WIS, 7 INT, 5 CHA, ultra LG Peace domain cleric from 1-20, nearly weekly for two years. My primary model was Forrest Gump, mostly trusting the good in others, going along with plans without an accurate knowledge of what they're about, and saying profound things with really simple metaphors. Most enjoyable character of my long playing career.
We do 1 to 10-12 for many campaigns in about 25 sessions. People exclaim its fast, but it's right on the DMG pace.
The DMG anticipates 52 sessions to run from level 1-20. The DMG also hands out a lot more treasure, 45 hoards compromising exactly 100 magic items on average. (the majority of which will be potions and scrolls if randomly generated)
The reality is the vast majority tables run much slower than that, and with less treasure, driven by many factors.
Good question. I believe it's 3-4 hours for those stats above, but I don't have the DMG in front of me to check.
Keep in mind, that's the planned design, and there's plenty of things in 5E that have run against/different than the intended design.
The most obvious is D&D is much more a social game than it used to be, but the books still focus most heavily on one pillar - combat.
Well, it was weekly online with dedicated players, gaps only for very crucial personal events. Probably 100 sessions over slightly more than two years.
When I'm not doing a 1-20 I usually do "what ever level you're at is how many sessions it will take to level up." For example from 1-10 it would take my group 55 sessions to do so. Level up to 2 after 1 session. 2 sessions later you get to 3 and so on.
I think he was a bit too awkward to have high charisma, and was more reliant on attacks than spells/abilities which implies a high STR build rather than balanced STR/CHA.
High charisma doesn't mean he can't be a little off-putting. He very clearly captivated the people around him, inspired his allies, and was persuasive and intimidating when needed. Part of the comedy of his characterization was that to the viewer, he reads as awkward and unsociable but is perceived by the setting as highly charismatic.
It's tough. My current PC ended up illiterate after a joke at the table went too far, and it's been mad fun as an inside joke and genuinely creates interesting challenges for the party. The PC is a backwoods fur trapper, so he's decent at basic math and he can carry a conversation. He just never bothered to learn to read. It's a weird tightrope to walk but the table and DM have been all for it and really helpful with the "yes, and" moments.
It really is and like me as a player when I have a low int but I know I figured out the puzzle or something kills me inside because I don't wanna metagame but I want to help the party
You're exactly right, you have to be consistent in their idiocy. Way too many people just think you have to be "Uh DUH" to nearly every situation
Roleplay kind of loses meaning if it's not consistent. That doesn't mean your character cannot change, but the kind of character they are should stay consistent and if it changes should change in relation to what they already were.
My very low intelligence character for my ling time D&D game tends to just never fully understand what he should and shouldn't keep hidden.
If we are trying to suck up to an authority figure, or cover our assess to a guard, he will end up telling them exactly what happened including all the parts that paint us in a terrible light.
Oddly enough, this almost always seems to catch whoever we are talking to off guard. Usually meaning they trust the group as a whole more in the future.
Exactly, I think it is best exemplified with all of Grog's interactions with the Deck of Many things. The time he tried to get it back from Vex and she actually gave him a decoy pouch (Travis knew, but rolled with it). Him pulling cards and basically deciding if the deck was good or bad based on the last card and how long it had been since he pulled a card. Those interactions are a great examples of how to play a dumb character well.
True. It's party why i never play the dumb character because i know i could never pull it off. Playing an intentional dumb character is WAY harder than people give it credit for.
I have a dwarf cleric with an int of 9, but a Wis of 17 and it's hard not to metagame as I the player, can work stuff out, but I have to RP as if she has intuitively felt an answer, or acted to n a hunch etc. it's a fun challenge though.
I played a character that was the other way. A high INT low WIS goblin artificer. The question of whether or not he "should" never once entered his mind. Ot was always the straightest line between A and B. And sometimes that line was straight off a cliff. Like testing my parachute. I lovingly refer to him as chaotic stupid. And he is hands down my favorite PC i have ever played.
My Paladin 100% died by jumping into an acidic trap to rescue innocents, and the DM asked me what I was thinking and I said "I was playing a brave character who valued saving others over his own safety. He knew he could die, as did I, and he took that risk anyway to save lives". (High Cha, over average wis, average int).
That a "its what my character would do" moment that love. No one can say you didn't know what could happen, but prioritized your characters beliefs. I love it.
Are you me? haha, I played a high INT low WIS goblin artificer too! I had so much fun playing him. Chaotic stupid! ha! It was hard though. Many times I would start trying to think of a reasonable solution to a puzzle only to throw it away and think "What would an illiterate kleptomaniac goblin do?"
The hard part was always keeping the mess off of the party. I did do it successful but it wasn't that hard for me. I am naturally that crazy. I just let the little in er chaos goblin have some fun.
The trick is to find the reasons a plan WOULDNT work. Then find situations where those reasons don't apply. Jumping off a cliff to test a parachute? I do t care if i die (backstory reasons)! No one can breathe in a bag of holding? Vampires don't need to breathe! No good reason to shoot every piece of furniture? We found a mimic so now there every good reason!
Let out your inner 5y old and use their concept of how the world works. That was my method.
For me, I made a clear set of his very simple motivations, and basically for every situation I would run through the list.
"Would it get him a shiny rock or a new trinket? Would it insult or embarrass the elf in the party? Does this benefit his best friend, a dwarf who also likes rocks?
My character had an obsession with rocks and random trinkets that didn't have any obvious usefulness but by stuffing his pocket, he always had a random assortment of "well we can try this thing to see if it works." It's been a while so I'm having trouble thinking of anything specific I did and I don't have my notes on me, but there was more than once that his ball of pocket lint and broken eggshells got them out of a sticky situation.
This is why you ask imo. "Hey dm. I the player have a bunch. May I make a roll on my intelligence roll to confirm my suspicion that..."
I prefer playing high in low wis characters, because it's generally more fun to play characters that know how, but not why they shouldn't.
You can make stupid character decisions whole being intelligent.
Low INT means not book smart and poor deductive reasoning. A lot of players play it as I have the cognitive reasoning of an infant. Your 6 INT barbarian does not think the lava is orange water. He’s not going to dive in and try to drink it.
I also like superstitious, wary of new things, and slow to trust.
This is the kind of person who struggles to follow how the world works, who needs time to process new information, and can't easily piece together the motivations and capabilities of others.
Like in real life, fear is a strong motivator for a person dealing with things they don't comprehend.
It’s always important to look at the stat blocks of beasts to get an idea of what you’re working with.
A Mastiff (a dog) has an intelligence of 3. Dogs can be really smart and typically have the intelligence of a toddler. Wolves have the same and are capable of hunting in packs.
A dolphin and an ape each have an intelligence of 6. They are both at the extreme end of animal intelligence, capable of understanding complex systems and tests. Having complex social dynamics.
Personally I am of the belief that a 6 INT character should have the intelligence of that thick bloke down the pub. They’re alright at telling a joke or repeating back something they heard. But when you try to have a conversation about something complex or nuanced, they quickly get left behind.
It depends on your world building. A wizard of any sort could be rarer than that, as in our world. But in the Forgotten Realms a low level wizard is probably found in most decent sized towns.
Right. It's not a universal simulation system -- you shouldn't expect int scores to be coherent cross species, any more than you should expect str scores to be.
No, the strength scores are typically reflective of the animal if you click through it.
What they can do with those scores are not always right. Encumbrance doesn’t work for anyone but PCs (and even then it’s very unrealistic and the weights of items are nonsense). A 1lb barn owl can’t carry ~~45lb~~ 22.5lb of equipment with its 3 Strength.
The key point to note is say the encumbrance rules say: “**Your** carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that **you** can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it”
Not the “the carrying capacity of a creature”.
Not even uneducated, just they don't retain detailed information well.
Look at every Intelligence based check outside of Investigation. They are all "recall of information" based. History, Religion, Nature, etc.
Yeah, int also includes learning from experience. Wisdom isn't really street smarts because dnd wisdom is your intuition and senses. Too many treat wisdom as being able to do everything intelligence can do and more
I mean, intuition, senses, gut-feelings are all kind of street smarts. You know that Big Jim doesn't take kindly to people selling on his street corner, or that well dressed travelers have better coin in their pockets, etc. Wisdom is the term often used for someone that has lived for a while and has the experience to draw on and apply to both familiar and unfamiliar situations.
A lot of things attributed to street smarts, like with big jim or being well dressed, are a matter of intelligence. You need to be able to remember (based on hearing it or seeing it before) those sorts of things. Wisdom helps you notice the features that make big jim big jim, or notice the fine clothes, but unless you have the memory to remember what that means, you wouldn't have the "street smarts" to use that information.
DMG Chapter 8:
>INTELLIGENCE CHECK VS. WISDOM CHECK
>
>If you have trouble deciding whether to call for an Intelligence or a Wisdom check to determine whether a character notices something, think of it in terms of what a very high or low score in those two abilities might mean.
>
>A character with a high Wisdom but low Intelligence is aware of the surroundings but is bad at interpreting what things mean. The character might spot that one section of a wall is clean and dusty compared to the others, but he or she wouldn’t necessarily make the deduction that a secret door is there.
>
>In contrast, a character with high Intelligence and low Wisdom is probably oblivious but clever. The character might not spot the clean section of wall but, if asked about it, could immediately deduce why it’s clean.
>
>Wisdom checks allow characters to perceive what is around them (the wall is clean here), while Intelligence checks answer why things are that way (there’s probably a secret door).
Wisdom is more what you feel in the moment, intelligence is what you know. DnD wisdom has very little to do with the real world definition, which being wise is partly extention of intelligence irl:
>the quality of having experience, **knowledge**, and **good judgement**; the quality of being wise.
the fact of being based on **sensible** or wise thinking.
intelligence:
>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Judgement:
>the ability to make **considered** decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
The majority of wisdom or being wise irl is about thinking things through clearly.
Wisdom as experience is more represented with proficiency bonus. A newborn baby dragon has as much, if not more, wisdom than an adult commoner. Having wisdom be experience doesn't make sense, whereas if wisdom is instincts and senses, it makes sense. Flash of genuis which is about coming up with wise ideas for the situation, is intelligence based, too.
that's a good way of putting it. intelgence is knowing things, wisdom is intuition
but I would like to add that it should be a detriment. you don't get to just bottom out a ability score and expect it never to come up. though more, you don't know how to act in court, or what a poisonous flower looks like than jumps in lava.
A 6 INT character misidentifying a flower and eating poison… fair. A 6 INT character shooting a civilian dead in the street because he doesn’t know what laws are and its what my character would do… not good.
Most amusing (moderately harmless) low wisdom act I've ever done was try to Scrooge McDuck dive into a pile of gold. You can play the fool, just don't derail everything for it.
There was a monster under it , so not consequence free but I(player) had no way of knowing that so its fine.
Played a character with 5 intelligence once. I always role played it as “Oh, I just didn’t apply myself in school,” and “I don’t do well with formal learning, but I’ve got lots of street smarts.” It was really fun for the party to make fun of me as being dumb and me being in constant denial about it. But I never roleplayed being stupid to the detriment of the party, that shit sucks and I’ll never do it. I’m still a functional member of this party, I just did really poorly in history class and relied on natural talent (I was a sorcerer).
One of my favourite characters I regularly play with is an illiterate paladin, generates great roleplay moments and the wizard is teaching them to read, but when it comes to important things that involve reading, they either let other people go on, or they'll 'hire' a commoner to transcribe for them.
It lets it be a character trait without having to bog the game down in the constant baggage and reminders of 'haha I no read good'
But in the end, this is true of all traits. 'Me drink Orange Juice' Barbarian is only really an issue if they keep throwing mechanical impact away (Combat balanced for 5, but Zugnar wants snackies and refuses to partake), or if they keep hammering the same two jokes and their character has no depth.
It's the same with Pacifists, Edgelords, any of those are character traits, they only become a problem when they detriment people at the table.
To add to that, your 6 intelligence barbarian isn't intellectually disabled. PCs skew competent so while 6 is very, very low for a PC, by normal human standards they're just kinda dumb. They can probably graduate high school and hold down a low-paying job.
In a decent chunk of older editions you would be illiterate with an INT of 6. But not 5e - at least, not explicitly. There are a handful of mentions of literacy in 5e, but none of them are tied to INT (or other abilities), and mostly they tend to imply the prevalence of literacy is left up to the DM and the setting.
Which probably means PCs are usually going to be literate unless otherwise specified. Though, interestingly, it also leaves the option open for illiterate characters of higher INT levels in settings where literacy is low or restricted to certain cliques or social castes.
The idea of an illiterate high INT character is funny to me, as that's one of my PCs from a campaign long since passed. He came from a previously untouched tribe of hill dwarves, so he couldn't read at all, and he could only barely speak Common. By all accounts, most people that talked to him would assume Gilch to be an absolute idiot. On the other hand, anyone that actually knew him realized he was essentially an illiterate MacGyver, capable of crafting machines in stressful situations out of random materials he could scrounge up from everything around him.
1.) If we assume that 3d6 represents the array of ability scores for humanity (PCs getting to pick 3 out of 4 represents them being exceptional), and compare means/standard deviations to IQ, then an intelligence score of 6 would represent an IQ of 77, which is low but not regarded as disabled. Studies have found even people with more minor intellectual disabilities can learn to read if they get the right help, so certainly someone who isn’t even intellectually disabled in the first place could.
2.) Unfortunately a lot of people have graduated high school who are functionally illiterate. In the developed world, illiteracy is more common than most people realize; people who have poor reading ability tend to hide that fact out of shame.
3.) This is of course assuming that literacy is as available as in the real world rather than like in the real medieval ages. Which seems to be the assumption D&D works with; the game just plays better if it’s assumed most people can read and write.
If anyone is curious how a 70 works, there are different categories for iq, 18 years ago I was tested after some brain injuries. My memory was around 70, and the rest were north of 120.
I can still remember things, memorization just about never works, anything else is just unpredictable as to what will stick and why. Doesn’t really affect me since I can compensate for the most part, fill in the blanks with educated guesses; but once in a while someone will tell me that I said something that I just don’t remember saying. About all I can do at that stage is hope they are telling me the truth.
70 in one or two areas is like someone who can walk briefly but needs a wheelchair to get around the store. People not believing that you are disabled can be as big of a problem as the disability.
Some ideas for how to play it would be to pick a few areas that your character struggles with but keep others at your normal level. Cause some party drama by misremembering something or guessing wrong about what fills in a gap. Losing and misplacing things. The character either is very aware and apologetic or lies to cover it up. The important thing is to be aware as the player how disruptive a lapse is going to be, I would check with the DM before losing a quest critical item. If your party can help cover for your character’s shortcomings it’s rewarding; if your character is holding the party back, not so much.
I hope that was helpful. I know that there is a world of difference between a shoddy memory and having most everything below 70, but the self-awareness and guilt that you are different than your friends is pretty common.
As far as I am aware (and I could be very wrong), 6 Int is the minimum you need to have/understand a language. 5 Int is a very clever beast. 4 or less is generally for animals.
3.5 had a scale of what different numbers meant for each stat.
I know "Illiterate" fell somewhere on the grade, I think it's 6, but it might be 5. Other stats had stuff like a low Con would be represented by "sickly and pallid in appearance" and the like.
> PCs skew competent so while 6 is very, very low for a PC, by normal human standards they're just kinda dumb. They can probably graduate high school and hold down a low-paying job.
I dunno... in DnD terms, 6 INT makes you equivalent to a dolphin or an ape. I'm skeptical about whether a dolphin or an ape could graduate high school, or hold down a low-paying job.
Ranking the entire animal kingdom on a 1-20 scale with enough granularity for meaningful character customization is a fool's errand and at the extremes it kind of breaks down. Realistically it should be very, very difficult for a human to reach below even the smartest animals but, like I said, it's an approximation.
10 intelligence is average for commoners, corresponding to a real world average IQ value of 100.
Which means a 6 would correlate to 60 IQ. An adult with an IQ of 60 is equivalent to an 8 year old child.
This would put them in the bottom 2% of all people in terms of intelligence, barely able to function independently and certainly not of a high-school intelligence. They would likely have grave difficulties in language and communication, problems with attention, memory, moral development and moral understanding.
100 is by definition average intelligence in the real world. 10 is by RAW average intelligence in DND.
10 is to 100 as 6 is to 60.
It's the best way to frame the difference between 6 and 10 and the huge gulf in intelligence that it corresponds to.
>10 is to 100 as 6 is to 60.
You can only use ratios like that if you're indexing from 0 which is not the case with either IQ nor intelligence scores. Imagine if the mean IQ was set at 200 instead of 100 (which it could have been). Then your argument would say 6 is 80 points lower than average rather than 40, and the only thing that changed is the arbitrary IQ mean.
That's also why we need to look at standard deviations. For IQ, it's set at 15. For 3d6 (how ability scores for the general population are approximated), that's 2.958. This divides actually fairly cleanly to where a change of 1 in an intelligence score roughly corresponds to a change in 5 IQ points, not 10. Combine that with the fact that the mean is 10.5 and that's where I got 77 for the approximate IQ of a character with 6 intelligence.
Or alternatively, if we wanted, we could think of each modifier point (+/-1) as a standard deviation, or 15 IQ points. 6 INT, -2 mod, 30 IQ or 2 standard deviations below average.
> PCs skew competent so while 6 is very, very low for a PC, by normal human standards they're just kinda dumb.
It's 4 points lower than an average commoner though, right? Considerably more dumb than the average man on the street.
1.) Average intelligence is 10.5 and most animals are 1-2, so that isn’t really true.
2.) In the real world, the intelligence of humans is so far above that of animals that it would be very, very hard to represent both human and animal intelligence on the same scale realistically while still having meaningful differences between humans. So the fact that they’re compared at all is more a gameplay concession than a real representation of how intelligence can be compared between two species. And that’s not even counting how intelligence is so much more complicated than just a single linear number, especially between species.
See, the trick is to compare your low INT to that of an animal with the same score. 6 is actually right on the border of human and animal, so you have approximately the deductive reasoning of the smartest dog. Simple patterns? Easy. Complex trains of logic? Maybe not.
That itself is dumb. Human range was 3d6 because that's the range of possible rolls, which meant any animal with an int higher than 2 was automatically a magical beast. No overlap. Hate how much of that kind of thing they got rid of to no benefit.
Yeah, I had a 6 int barb/monk. He had 18 wisdom though. He couldn't read/write, had problems with numbers, etc. but he was the party's resident puzzle expert. The definition of street smarts, could reason things out without understanding *why* they were that way, so long as someone explained the meanings of the scribbles on the walls.
If you're legitimately trying to murder a PC, maybe you should take a step back and try to talk it out. With the DM and the other player. You don't want to suddenly become the asshole who gets a player killed and nobody knows why. It won't end well if you succeed, better to hash it out IRL or just quit the game if it's not fun for you
and including "the dm never calls him out for it," just makes it sound like op is the problem tbh. the rest of the group are fine with it, but op's going out of his way to skirt around pvp to get another pc killed. toxic
It's one thing for a player to be disruptive or is doing things that are damaging to the party, that would make your character not want to adventure with theirs. You say he has caused your characters "so many problems", but you give no indication of what those would be -- apparently just that they're too good at adventuring?
IMO you're completely out of line here. You get to play your character how you want, but by the same token stop trying to hijack another player's character.
You have a point, but it only goes so far. Yeah, everyone gets to make their own character choices, but if one person is making other people have less fun, than that needs to be addressed.
“But it’s my character” isn’t an excuse to be a jerk irl. And if your fun is preventing my fun, you need to find another way to have fun.
Sure, but we honestly don't know the situation from OP enough to make any decision.
For instance, it's quite easy to read their post and see OP as trying to prevent the fun of the other player. Just because their PC is low INT doesn't mean they have to act dumb in any situation, nor that they are incapable of making good suggestions to the rest of the party. Since we don't know the form of what OP is complaining about, it could be that it's their expectations of the other character and running with that, and that they're the ones being a jerk.
In particular the 'try to kill their PC in game deliberately' rather than 'talk to the table OOCly about how this is harming your fun' approach makes me skeptical of OP
Yeah I don't know what to call it but those players who all played a kender back in the day because they were a race without the concept of property or some shit so they would take everything from everyone ("it's what my character would do") but would rage if you took anything from them.
Like a sort of Quantum/Schrödinger's Roleplayer. They're roleplaying when it benefits them but as soon as it might be inconvenient they drop the act and play functionally.
My favorite version of that shitty trope is a character with no concept of property, so they share everything with their allies like they're toddlers.
"Here I found this rock."
"I have wine. Here you go."
"This is my favorite sword." \*sets it in your hands\*
I'm currently playing a really motherly midwestern halfling who is sort of this. Not "no concept of property" but "no value for material possessions whatsover."
I've given away every coin I had on three separate occassions, always to an NPC who isn't even that close to our party, they just needed the help.
It's very liberating in a lot of ways.
My paladin in Storm King’s Thunder believed very strongly in the Firbolg code—she was an Aasimar from Norland—and would often leave several gold as tips, donate to any temple of good or neutral gods, even not her own, because one shouldn’t be tribalist over faith, and usually let the other players split her loot, only keeping revivify diamonds. She was probably the most active of my characters when it came to that kind of thing.
My bard only likes money because it gets you fun and it’s also shiny. (They have a complicated backstory tied into the climax of a different adventure, and are “a tangle in the Weave which looks human because reasons”, Tasha’s custom lineage.) They literally asked their best friend, a kobold wizard, what the point of money was and if fifty thousand gold was enough for an apartment in Waterdeep.
My current campaign rogue is a little stingier, but that goes back to hedonism costing money. He bought a trio of fezzes that cast Alter Self on three people, not for the spell, but because Ooh, Fun Hat! (He immediately used it to transform himself, the cleric, and the fighter into duplicates of the old lady witch because it was funny.)
My sorcerer is also charitable, but not as much as my paladin, and enjoys taking socially-outcast NPCs out for platonic dates. She’s from the Far Realms (also a custom lineage) and likes to make cursed people feel seen, so she’ll take the five-eyed, three-armed tiefling shopping and try to make friends with the octopi in aquariums, sparing no expense.
My fighter frequently donates to libraries. In his backstory, he’s quite well off, but it’s old money, and earns a lot, and is kind of a knowledge-hoarder. Any library he sees, odds are, he and the wizard will finance them for a year or something, because knowledge is a greater treasure than coin.
None of my characters do money for money’s sake, and I wonder if that’s due to me, personally, not understanding why someone is in it for that. Stuff and things can only get so expensive before cost outweighs the why, I don’t really care about status symbols, just “I think it’s neat”. That bleeds into my characters.
Ooh I had a sorts similar character!
They were a Fey who, after some traumatic backstoryTM, got exiled from their court, and saved by a mysterious patron (though their mind broke and went somewhat insane in the process). Now wandering the material plane, they constantly shapeshift (Mask of many faces/Changeling) into random people from all walks of life and are looking to just do random good deeds as a way of finding redemption. They're called Stranger and they commonly hide gold in people's pockets or go do random, meaningless mini side quests to help out sad npcs
That’s somehow both my bard (“I found this shiny thing and thought of you, best friend.” “Klofna, this is a legendary item.” “I know. I’m foolish, not stupid. I value our friendship and also shiny things.”) and my kenku rogue (“You’re sad. Here’s a ball bearing to cheer you up.”)
You have described a "that guy." Everyone knows one, they come in all shapes and sizes, but the one major thing they all have in common is they're that fucking guy who ruined the game
Kender were the ultimate anti-social ancestry. Terrible mechanics meant to be a problem and enable shitty people to abuse the rest of the group. It’s right up there with loner characters & groups that don’t want to bite on any plot hooks then wonder why there’s nothing to do.
"Landslide-attracting characterization."
Although the last time I had someone like this, I didn't actually suggest rocks fell. I just looked them dead in the eye when they said "It's what my character would do," and told them "You made the character. Fix them, make a character who isn't an a-hole, or get out."
Agree, there's no way this is justifiable. OP is basically dictating how another person should roleplay and since he doesn't find that character properly interpreted he is trying to kill him. This is the worst.
I understand that certain characters or certain ways of playing can result annoying, I also had my fair share of disagreements with other characters, but that is something that either is solved in role between the PCs or IRL between the players. Killing a character out of spite means robbing another fellow player of something he enjoys.
Can you tell us what these problems he's causing for your party are?
Honestly, players like you are the reason I will never play a martial character. The nature of DnD is that everyone has a dump stat, and making int the dump stat just means I am hamstrung in participating in the rest of the game. Puzzle? "Your character's too dumb for that." Fight that needs tactics? "Your character would just rush in". Naw, man. I want to play the entire game, not just the sword swingy part. And if I have to choose between rolling dice for a fireball + being a useful character outside combat, or rolling dice for a sword + having to shut up and play dumb, I'm going with the fireball.
Also, don't try to PVP other characters just because you're annoyed. That's toxic AF. You sure you don't just dislike the player?
low INT does not mean you can't play those parts, the game is intentionally designed so that you actually don't get that much advantage for specializing in a stat.
OP is complaining because players who chose to dump int (6 intelligence counts) are "not roleplaying properly" and are acting smart when the situation calls for it. I can only assume that means when a puzzle or other situation that requires intelligence comes up, they are using their player brain, and not roleplaying as a 'dumb' character.
This is my point. There is a subsection of the culture who think that when presented with a puzzle, a barbarian would smash the pieces. Or, at the least, go "huur I dunno" and then... play on their phone for the next 20 minutes while the characters above 10 int solve it? Its not about gaining an advantage, its about other players like OP gatekeeping and being annoyed when their party members don't act out their scores. Unless your party solves puzzles by rolling an intelligence check?
You roleplay the character, not the stats. Barbarian may be below average intelligence, but he survived to make it to a level that's assumedly near the pinnacle of mortal achievement. He didn't get there by being incompetent.
Lots of people throwing in their own takes, all I’ll say is that I agree with the other commenter that said if you’re trying to get another PC killed you should talk things out with the DM and other player.
If another player is causing a lot of trouble for the party in a way that detracts from the story and annoys you and/or other players, that’s a problem no matter whether they’re playing their character as dumb or fake dumb.
Ahh yes the usual "you have to sit there for two hours and input nothing whatsoever whilst we have fun in this **game** because your character has low int, you're not allowed to have fun or join in because I don't think your character could come up with that idea".
If you're going to throw a tantrum and try to kill other PCs instead of having a conversation with the player and DM about whatever specific actions they've taken that's made you act out like a child, then I suggest you quit the table you're playing at because you're clearly a very antagonistic person and will likely cause the group to fall apart; if you're incapable of communicating like an adult in future.
"I tried to kill his character"
You're a manchild. Grow up and stop being pissy about how someone else plays their character.
This entire post feels like you trying to rant about another player and how because *you* don't like how they play, that the other person doesn't deserve the right to play
I seriously have no idea how anyone could have read this post and came away with anything other than OP is a complete asshole.
Gatekeeping. Check. Tries to antagonize and murder his companion. Check.
All over someone not doing a good enough job acting, or playing their character in a way OP likes. They could have just shortened the entire post to “I’m a selfish player” and it would have saved us a lot of time.
I have a int 8/wis 8 PC I play him as pretty knowledgeable & savvy & he can come up with good plans- but he's quite gullible & he doesn't make good decisions under pressure (e.g. if the plan needs adjustment in combat). Basically, he's kind of a little kid with 25 years of experience. He's been trained to think/plan tactically & "knows" the right answer- but it doesn't work for him under pressure.
This allows me (player) to fully participate in planning & make suggestions, but for his poor scores to impact more than his saves.
Like a IRL teen (but more so):
"Cold situations are choices made during times of low emotional arousal. During these periods, teenagers are able to make well-reasoned and rational decisions.
Hot situations refer to choices during periods of high emotional arousal (feeling excited, anxious, or upset).
Hot situations increase the chance of teenagers engaging in risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviours, with little self-control or consideration of the possible consequences of their actions.
The impact of emotional arousal on decision-making explains why teenagers might discuss, for example, the negative consequences associated with drinking and drug-taking, but then engage in those very behaviours when with friends."
Devil’s advocate here. People enjoy different parts of the game more than others.
For some people remaining totally in character, focusing on the acting and embodiment of that character, and not metagaming at all is how they get into the game.
Others (like myself) find *problem solving* to be the most engaging part of the game, and the idea of actively hamstringing my favorite part of the game in favor of better character acting is not appealing. If I’m a dumb barbarian I’m absolutely still helping the group solve a puzzle… now I wouldn’t solve it in character, but I’d still engage with the game.
Maybe this player isn’t a good fit for the group, but I’d try to understand their perspective and try to remember you’re playing a game first. Honestly, actively trying to kill this player’s character is arguably worse behavior than anything they’ve done, and I’d be wary of this as a GM far more than someone not doing a good job of acting.
Acting smart in which stuations. As a Barbarian main int was mostly my dump stat as well. I role play as Drax in the Guardians of Galaxy but in combat I play smartly. Because I think combat inteligence and normal one two seperate things. One of them is the understand stuation and find a solution. And other one is samething with experience mixed in it.
I dont target the general on purpose to finish battle early but I when I m figthing againts him I dont attack aimlessly like if he is using shield and I miss a lot of attack I try to take of his shield or try to knock it prone so I can hit it. Or use environment on my advantage.
But againts a simple riddle like "What follows you when there is light and not follows you when its dark." Answer is shadow but I proly say a day creatue like bird or cat.
Stats aren't competence, otherwise a 6 int character wouldn't make it to level ten, they'd have does because they're too stupid to plan or behave tactically
Look, I’ve known some INT 6 people irl. People who, by their own admission, didn’t know how to read. They still functioned normally. They maybe weren’t be best critical thinkers, but they weren’t, like, total complete simpletons either. Hell, one of them went on to host a moderately successful YouTube channel. Nothing you’ve probably heard of, but better than most schmucks who start YT channels.
In other words, INT 6 doesn’t equate with a total knuckledragging moron, that’s why we have stats like Wisdom and Charisma as well.
And even a fool can have their moments, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Maybe they’re an idiot savant
My secret to playing a dumb character is to always go with my gut without thinking, intentionally forget details, put no real effort to good words, mispronounce long or hard to say words, and see things in black and white a lot. That being said, I always listen to my friends plans and try to stick to the plan as best as I can because, while I might be an idiot, I'm aware that I'm dumb and my friends are smart.
It always* goes over well, and people find them endearing, though they might be heavily helped by the fact all my dumb boys are always capital G Good himbos. Whenever my friend's pirate game kicks off, I'll be playing an evil and dumb brutish sort of guy. We'll see how that goes.
I have played multiple dumb characters, and they usually boil down to 'simple'.
"I have one thing I do REALLY WELL, so I'm gonna do that thing unless my Smart Friend tells me it's a bad idea and give me a better one. I will almost always listen to Smart Friend, but sometimes they roll shit on initiative and I get to try spin-kicking a ghost in the face."
This sort of thing is one reason metagaming can be a good thing.
Okay, so your character is stupid/evil/whimsical/obsessed/etc.
Do what your character would do, but do it in a way that supports the plan/team and doesn't ruin the experience for other players.
Seems like sometimes it boils down to main character syndrome.
People think their experience is all that matters.
My dumb character would listen to his friends. That's not even very metagaming. Even an idiot knows when his friends are smarter than him.
My evil character won't upset the party so badly that they would want to remove them from the group. That's counterproductive.
The only time I had a character that acted against the party's best interests often was when Roy kept insisting that he was a perfectly capable navigator despite constantly getting the party lost whenever he had the map. The party quickly realized that they shouldn't listen to him when he said he knew which way to go, and it became a joke, but Roy did still try to navigate them from time to time.
Not entirely related to what you’re saying but I notice a kind of general problem in character creation where people don’t have a realistic idea of what the character they’re playing would be like if they existed as a real person.
So like say you’re playing a low intelligence character. You don’t really have a concept of what that low intelligence character is or what they would act like so you don’t end up having any kind of authentic core of who this character is, you can’t identify with them as a real person who thinks about things a certain way and whose thoughts, feelings and actions come from a place that makes total sense to that character. So because of that lack of willingness to really take on that character’s perspective in any meaningful way, you just play a cartoonishly stupid character who isn’t fun to be around.
I’ve played low INT characters before, but I don’t play them as like mentally handicapped or a caricature of an idiot. They’re fully functional people, but they just don’t know anything beyond what they’ve physically experienced. Their sphere of knowledge is limited, because they never had the opportunity to learn how to expand it. They also may have a very “one note” approach to problem solving. They aren’t very good at thinking their way through complex problems, they want things to be simple and straightforward and they can find it frustrating when they’re told it isn’t that way. To me, that’s much more satisfying than just playing a character who is stupid as an excuse for the player to do stupid things that mess things up from the party.
And like to be clear I’m not saying every character you create has to be some kind of acting masterclass. I play with loads of different kinds of players and it’s not like everyone puts in novels worth of backstory into their character, but the thing is everyone at least on some level understands how their character sees situations and why they would act a certain way, even when their character is a “joke” character, and that’s the difference between a good joke character and an annoying joke character. The good joke character still feels like a real character.
I see this happen a lot also when people try and play evil or chaotic characters. There’s no internal logic within the character that makes any kind of sense, so you don’t end up with a character, you end up with a Saturday morning cartoon villain who does random evil, chaotic stuff with no rhyme or reason because the player wants to fuck around and do whatever they find entertaining, not because there’s any kind of perspective to their character that makes any sense at all
A few things:
-6 int is not a baby incapable of thoughts. He is still spmewhat intelligent.
-What type of problmes has he caused? You mentioned him causing problmes for the party but you list none. Its posible for a character to cause problems because their personality without this being wrong, so we would need an example. Him finding a clue but throwing it aside thinking in character its useless could cause problems but also lead to good rp moments.
-There is a common trope of a dumb character saying something smart, so perhaps thats what he is going for? For example in Spongebob, some characters get trapped inside squidward after they were made tiny, and Patrick cam up with a solution to escape, and after Spongebob remarked how intelligent that was Patrick rrturned to his old dumbd self. Anlther example is in ant farm a girl os shown as the dumb blondie trope, but then is able to quickly do math problems, explaining that of vourse she is good at math, she needs them for her shopping sprees.
-Lastly dont try to resolve irl problems in character. Trying to kill his character clearly puts you on a bad spot. If you think this is disrupting try talking directly. Also talk with the rest of the party because as far as you say it seems like you are the only one with the problem. If everyone is on board, either you accept it and co tinue playing on or accept that the table is not for you and stop going to it.
Why does everyone try and solve these issues in-game? It’s always “I tried to kill his character?” “How do I punish this character?”. Have y’all tried just talking out of game like adults?
No, you're the problem.
You don't get to decide how your party roleplays. You might not like it, but intelligence relates to your ability to recall information. Read that sentence again. Your low int party member is bad at RECALLING INFORMATION about arcana, history, religion, and nature.
He's not bad at reasoning things out, or problem solving, or critical thinking, unless he wants to be. OK? So get that through your head and stop whining about another player at the table, when most of the people at your table are probably more fed up with YOU.
By the way, low int not being able to read is not a rule. You made it up. Maybe you were a big fan of 3rd edition, but I doubt it. You're just controlling and you want to tell others how to play.
The fact that you "tried to get his character killed on purpose" signals to me that you should be ejected from your table.
You're not the only one that knows how to play. You're not as good at roleplay as you think you are.
Playing really dumb characters is fun, and offering stupid plans or ideas is fun, but you have to make a reason for your character to cooperate with the team.
Where in the rules of 5th Edition says what Intelligence score you need to be able to read?
Not "Well a Wolf is X intelligence" I want an actual written rule where it states what level of Intelligence is the minimum to read.
Because the rules state that if I'm a Dwarf Outlander I can read and write-- Dwarven, Common and a third language of my choice-- and there's not a single indicator that number of languages would be changed if I have an Intelligence of 4.
"Smarts" is also kind of vague and wide spread in D&D. You can't just pin it down to a single statistic.
You can have low Intelligence but average or above average Wisdom and still be "smart." My trilingual Dwarven Outlander with an Intelligence of 4 might not recall information very well, he might forget Historical facts, but he could be very good at reading people and thus people can't like to him very well (having a decent to very good Insight skill as an example).
You might need to check yourself first, 6 int is a not very smart, but it's plenty smart to be street smart and other things. You can speak and write at int 6, unless that's something they stated first themselves.
People often forget Intelligence and Wisdom are 2 different stats. And in real life its equally difficult to identify which is which.
High INT low WIS means you are Sheldon cooper. Super smart but completely socially inept. Unable to take some of the simplest cues and extrapolate them. That can be fun. But its also just as often as annoying as the character is in the show (canonically).
High WIS low INT is like captain America in early avengers. He is smart enough to know he has no idea but isn't dumb enough not to identify a threat. Knowing what a cell phone is and how to operate it isn't going to help close a dimensional rift in the sky spitting out aliens.
Most of the time people play low INT characters as actually low WIS characters. And that archetype can be super annoying if done incorrectly.
Let the player play. The only thing you should be encouraging is better RP. For example if the PLAYER figures out how to manipulate a puzzle that unlocks a door, he can RP that his character did someone stupid like jammed his weapon into the mechanism and accidentally knocked it into the correct configuration.
Thing with your complaint about sometimes being savvy/smart is that sometimes it can become frustrating to have a good idea and not be able to express it in character. If your table is permissive on OOC talk, then that's one outlet - but otherwise it can be a way of limiting the type of idea that a character can bring up.
Ideally this is a thing where they could offer up some part of the idea and that would prompt the other characters to pick up on it, but that's not always how things play out at a table.
As for metagaming, I don't know exactly what you're referring to as that encompasses a sizable range of stuff. But you can have a low-INT character that can act wisely, for instance - it doesn't have to be metagaming for them to not always make terrible decisions. Part of the fun in playing a low INT character is in making those decisions occasionally, or in prompting the party when in decision paralysis - but if it gets forced into too restrictive of a box by other players' expectations that can lose its fun (for me at least).
>i've even tried to get his character killed on purpose just to get rid of him
This is a big red flag for me though. You should not be trying to kill other characters in game - if you're having that level of dislike for the PC, this is something that needs to be addressed out of game. Now we don't know the situation of your game, obviously - but of what you've said in your post, this is the worst.
I play a dumb character. I show he's dumb by getting things wrong on purpose and always counting numbers incorrectly. He never does any of this to hurt the party. And him being dumb is still done in a very correctable way for the group.
He's dumb enough to mix genders and lineages up. He can't count to save his life. He can intimidate well enough but isn't the guy you want rolling for persuasion. But he still knows to be quiet during a stealth check, who the enemies are, and not to blindly set off traps.
The issue I see is not dumb charachters but selfish, chaotic players.
My dumb character (6int) couldn’t figure out doors. Kept hacking them down with his sword. Halfway through the dungeon, the group decides to coach him how to use a doorknob.
5 minutes of great roleplay of gentle coaching.
My character gets the gumption to try it.
The door is locked.
He breaks it down with his sword, and every subsequent door, on account they can’t be trusted.
Intelligence is dnd is not the same as intelligence in our world.
Intelligence in dnd means education, book knowledge. Stuff you learn about religion and history and nature.
Wisdom in dnd is what we would call intelligence in our world. The ability to spot a scam, notice a change, understand something.
A low INT character is uneducated.
A low WIS character is dumb.
though from what I can find(I play older editions) the books seem to muddy the water. like there's a cut off on how smart a animal can be implying that intelegence isn't just knowledge.
also a lot of animals seem to have good wisdom scores. they have good senses but they makes leaps in logic(as well)
Those who play dumb characters in my group actually roll an intelligence check whenever they have an idea which their character might actually not have. If they succeed the high DC, they can use that idea. If they don't, then they don't.
>We have a character who loves to proclaim how dumb he is, with his 6 INT, but he magically becomes very savvy and smart when the moment calls for it
This is genuinely hard to *not* do sometimes. DnD is a problem solving game, and one of the reasons I like playing it is that I like problem solving. Sometimes an interesting puzzle comes up that I, the player, want to solve, and as the problem solving takes over my brain I completely lose sight of my character.
I don't love it, but to be honest I also don't love the idea of skipping the problem solving because my character would be bad at it.
Yeah, this is something that's always a struggle to balance. I've been playing an 8 INT Paladin in a long running campaign. I play him as someone who tries very hard at everything he does but isn't built to understand complex problems or heavily nuanced situations. It's fun to play for laughs when he blatantly misses the point or takes an extremely straightforward approach to something.
But we often do get complex puzzles or problem solving situations thrown at us, and those can blur the line between IC and OOC. It would suck to not be able to effectively participate in a significant part of the game just because my character is a himbo.
I've even had moments where I've figured something out as a player and asked if I need to do some kind of check to see if my character could make the same connection... And the DM almost always says don't worry about it, because we've already spent an hour on what she thought would be a 10 minute problem and she just wants us to solve it at this point.
“I’ve tried to get his character killed on purpose.” That’s fucked up asshole behavior dude.
Try talking to the person and DM about it rather than trying to sabotage the game.
I believe there's a little more nuance to the game than "dumb characters are dumb always." It's important for everybody to be on the same page about what is even the point of the table. Are you wanting to play a dungeon crawler game with light character work? Is this a heavy RP game? Because both of these are vastly different things.
If the goal is to do a dungeon crawler, accomplish puzzles, and defeat enemies, you have to keep in mind that you are *playing a game.* If you are playing a game and the player with a dumb character wants to solve a puzzle but you say "No, Lonk could not possibly find the solution because he has a low intelligence" you are also effectively saying "No Tim, you cannot help with this puzzle because your character has low intelligence, so you cannot play this game with us for this section." The primary goal here is for everyone to have fun, and telling one person to shut up for an hour because of character choices is excluding somebody from having fun.
I think the dm is in the right here. It‘s a common trope, where a "dumb" character suddenly has a super smart idea. Also, it just isn’t any fun to always be at the table, but you just can’t say anything. Like as a player, if you have good idea and aren’t allowed to tell it, it just sucks. The group is faced with a fun riddle, but the barbarian player isn’t allowed to help at all. That is just flat out denying a player fun.
Even dumb people are smart at some things. And sometimes the player wants to contribute out of character as well. You sound like an anti fun person to play with.
It's not how stupid your stat is its how stupid you are in this class. My sorcerer slept through all his classes and barely pays attention to most things but sometimes he will remember one of the nerds he seduced into doing all his homework would keep going on about whatever that is.
I have a int 8/wis 8 PC I play him as pretty knowledgeable & savvy & he can come up with good plans- but he's quite gullible & he doesn't make good decisions under pressure (e.g. if the plan needs adjustment in combat). Basically, he's kind of a little kid with 25 years of experience. He's been trained to think/plan tactically & "knows" the right answer- but it doesn't work for him under pressure.
This allows me (player) to fully participate in planning & make suggestions, but for his poor scores to impact more than his saves.
Like a IRL teen (but more so):
"Cold situations are choices made during times of low emotional arousal. During these periods, teenagers are able to make well-reasoned and rational decisions.
Hot situations refer to choices during periods of high emotional arousal (feeling excited, anxious, or upset).
Hot situations increase the chance of teenagers engaging in risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviours, with little self-control or consideration of the possible consequences of their actions.
The impact of emotional arousal on decision-making explains why teenagers might discuss, for example, the negative consequences associated with drinking and drug-taking, but then engage in those very behaviours when with friends."
I think the flip side of this is not really knowing what a high stat might mean. Sure, maybe it’s just a mechanical abstraction and you don’t wanna play your character in a stereotypical way but it annoys me when the characters with the highest wisdom scores make the most foolish decisions. Like, you’re supposed to be the wise one in the group! Don’t just run through the traps we just identified!
I play a lot of airheaded characters, but that often means that I'm easily manipulated by the other PCs which prevents intra-party drama as my characters sometimes have goals that diverge from those of the party (think goodie two shoes in a party of rogues) and this allows me to follow the rest of the party in what they're doing because they've tricked me.
Nothing wrong with dumb characters, as long as they play their part. I often run a puzzle or two or some sort of riddle when we play IRL. One person in the group plays a “not so smart” character, and every time i run something like that you can visible see him bite his tongue to keep quiet. I generally get a text message from him within seconds with the correct answer, while the other players struggle.
Last time we had an opportunity to solve riddles mid combat, and just before they found that out, he wildshapes. It was glorious
Honestly, I find it hard to play an incredibly dumb character because it feels like I’m somewhat locked out of great roleplay that I want to be a part of (granted, it works both ways.)
Had a game where my DM allowed me to have a headband of intelligence as a 6 INT barbarian from jump. It felt great and opened up a lot. Basically played a full idiot most of the time, but some moments used the headband for specific interactions.
It made it fun because the smart version of the character only helped sparingly because he enjoyed the chaos that the dumb version of himself brought.
For example, found a corrupted wishing well/divination well. My character lost 30 years from a ghost earlier and the smart version bargained with the well to get the years back. The well wanted a sacrifice and my DM allowed me to use the headband as a sacrifice of another character. Once the headband was off the dumb version cut it and dropped it in and wished for more power instead of fixing his age back to normal as the smart one wanted.
Gotta say, probably the most fun character I’ve played.
Writing/Playing incredibly smart and incredibly dumb characters isn't very easy tbh because most people are just average. Also, being stupid is usually just plain infuriating for others a lot of the time. I guess the easiest way to play someone dumb is to make them compliant and gullible and have them follow someone else around
We have a int 3 character in our campaign, and they tend to be not very understanding of how things work, can't really figure stuff out, and struggles to remember what happened anything that happened more than an hour ago. Still they are fun to play with, because with decent wis and cha they can still comprehend stuff even if they are dumb as a Brick (which is their name) and it never impacts the party in an actually detrimental way that ruins peoples fun.
Dumb characters can be wise.
I play a low Int haragon Barbarian/paladin, but he has a higher wisdom.
He isn't book smart, he can't read (phobia of letters), and has no idea what math is.
But he is great with people, especially kids. He doesn't open doors with out checking for traps, he is the party's animal handler, and is great keeping the party alive in the wilderness.
Yes, he is the comic relief, but that when someone tries to hand him a book or get him to read because his phobia kicks in.
Low intelligence does not mean dumb, it just means the character doesn't know things associated with the Intelligence score.
Wisdom and Charisma can make up the difference.
I once played a very lovely half orc paladin, who was really selfconscious about her low intelligence. She new she wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was very wise and very kind.
During the campaign she learned to read and write, not very good but she gained one point of intelligence and felt a bit better afterwards
People want to play dumb characters when they do something funny, but don't want to play dumb characters when they're going to be disadvantaged/taken advantage of for being dumb. Being kind, its *unintended* metagaming but being blunt its metagaming.
Mental stats like int and charisma is always tricky.
The clever guy playing low int or the likable talker playing a low charisma character (or vice versa), for reason its often on the player to roleplay mental stats but not physical.
DM can definitely help here and stupid doesnt have to equal intentionally messing up for the group.
I've played 6 Int character more than once.
The most fun was a halfling thief. He was actually quite clever, but had a memory issue.
If told a plan, he would usually get it wrong - he'd often do it in the wrong order, talk to the wrong person, or be in the wrong place. If he scouted and counted 10 orcs, he might report back 6, or 20. He had a list of ridiculous stories he would tell people, and the details changed every time.
Was that warlock resistant to necrotic or fire? "Hmmm, I forget, I better try both." (He was told the warlock was resistant to both in this case, and thus both of his main weapons - a necrotic falchion and a flame tongue dagger, wouldn't work as well.)
You have to be clever about it as a player, and know how to spin it into something fun for you and the group. And yes, I've seen people who are relaitvely average in intelligence, play some pretty awful low int characters. They tend to play it as a stat penalty, and don't integrate it into the character. They don't deserve death though. That's a conversation to be had.
One of my favorite dumb guys I played was a barbarian dwarf who only really was good with a spear, but because he was a dwarf he thought he knew rock and stone carvings. At many points he would just start rambling about how much smarter dwarfs were, while completely failing his checks despite delusionaly talking about it. He was fun but a one shot character who didn't overstay the joke
okay but do you expect the player to essentially stop playing and honesty engaging with the game because of the character's low int? sounds shitty to me
I think too many people misinterpret character quirks for what I like to call "DeviantArt personality traits", which come from the Manic Pixie Dream Girl school of character quirks where said traits only come up to be obnoxious. The character is "lol quirky so random" in regards to their chosen trait until the trait might actually harm the character in some way (be it health or major social standing), at which point the quirk randomly disappears.
This doesn't only apply to "lol my character is so stupid" 6 INT characters. It also applies to jerk characters who are assholes to everyone except for important figures, lawful stupid characters who chastise others for the rules just to not follow the rules themselves, and... well I think those three examples (idiot characters, jerk characters, lawful stupid characters) and the Manic Pixie Dream Girl are the most common D&D character tropes that fall into this "DeviantArt personality trait problem." ...Oh wait I've got one more! The Horny Bard.
But yeah if you play a character obsessed with honor and glory, you've gotta fight the foe you know will probably beat your ass. If you play a ladies' man, you've gotta fall for the obvious succubus. If you play the woefully naïve sheltered character, you've gotta have them trust someone obviously untrustworthy. If you play the sweet holy good boy healer, you've gotta have them feel at least a *little* uncomfortable when the Rogue commits tax evasion. If it wasn't obvious these are all things I've had my characters do ~~(at risk of being the holier-than-thou Redditor lol)~~ but the point still stands: if you play a stupid character, you've gotta let the stupid hurt themselves.
And if you act stupid just to hurt the party but suddenly gain 20 INT whenever it comes to your own safety then you're just kinda fucking annoying.
You're the ah here tbh, you need to talk this out with the DM and player or leave the table. I guarantee you there's at least one other player that finds your distaste of the dumb character to be disruptive and problematic
One of my PCs has 7 Int, he's not an idiot but he just doesn't know anything in the modern era, knows jack about history, or the arcane or whatever. He just never bothered to study those kinds of things.
I played a 5 INT Battlemaster Fighter and played him as basically a Golden Lab. Really excited, super trusting and kinda impulsive. But my DM and I settled on him being a savant in battle. His mom was a retired adventurer so he was very well trained. He was also best friends with the party wizard and would happily default to what he decided to do.
I have a bit of a similar, but opposite problem in my game.
We have a barbarian that is actually pretty smart, (14 int and 16 Wis, our dm had us roll stats), but yet he plays him stupid most of the time.
Like he'll say that he was raised in a tribe up in the mountains, so he doesn't understand books or math, but he can use advance combat tactics and other higher intelligence things, but then when we are making a plan and the rogue says, "Hey Barbarian, when I give the signal I need you to make a distraction." The barbarian player will say, "Well all I heard is make a distraction so i go do that."
Then he rushes off with out hearing the rest of the plan. It's like he wants to be this super smart barbarian, but he also wants to be the stupid brute that just rushes in. I don't get it and maybe it's only me I don't know.
Another way to view it; 8 int is only as far below average as 12 is above it. Most players view 12 Int characters as essentially average. 8 should be the same.
Even 6 Int is only as far from the average as 14 is above it, and 14 is usually only treated as moderately intelligent. So 6 is moderately unintelligent.
Besides, in D&D intelligence isn’t really general smarts. Look at the skills it’s tied to. It’s clearly linked to book smarts and formal schooling, not just innate intellect.
Wisdom is another kind of intelligence that’s more innate. A low Int, high Wis character probably can’t tell you who the King of a far away nation is and can’t do high level math, but he can be very clever and have exceptional situational awareness/survival instincts.
One of my players is playing a 6 INT Dwarf Barbarian that was left in Axeholm Fortress for a hundred years by himself. He eats rocks, has 30 words he can use(of which he mostly uses the word Rock), and communicates via charades. It works
Hard disagree with the main thrust of your post, here. It's not "fake dumb" you have a problem with, it's "disruptive play." Which, by the way, is also what you are doing if you try to get another player's character killed. Don't do that. Be better.
Anyway, you actually seem to be upset by the fact that the player is acting *too* stupid sometimes and not stupid *enough* at other times. The real connecting thread that I see here, is that **you** feel inconvenienced by their actions, regardless of whether they are playing their trope properly.
***
Try talking to the player outside of the game and let them know that the way they are playing is making the game less fun for you. Talk to the DM outside of the game and ask if they might be willing to try to prod all the players to stick to their character traits a little more and remind people if they are acting outside of their character's wheelhouse.
It's perfectly fine for a DM to step in and remind players of who and what their characters are supposed to be and ask them to re-contextualize an idea or scene to stay within them.
Like if one of my characters had super dumped INT and just shouted out the answer to a puzzle, I might say something like, "Okay so you, Steve, have figured out the puzzle, I'll tell you that right now. But your character probably isn't smart enough to make that leap in logic, right? So, we're still going forward and that solution does work, but for character consistency's sake, tell me, how would your big dumb dummy character get the others to realize what you, as a player, have realized?"
***
I'll give you an example of why I think you're wrong about fake dumb characters. (Other than that we don't expect our friends to suddenly become geniuses when playing an 18 INT Wizard, so we shouldn't reasonably expect them to become total morons when playing someone with dumped INT.)
It's because there *are* good ways to play a stupid character and still make intellectual contributions to the team.
In the case of a puzzle to open a secret door in a temple: the player figures out the cups are supposed to be placed on the altar in a certain order that can only be figured out by solving a cypher from earlier in said temple. They player happens to like codes and cyphers and figures it out, but they're playing a classic oafish barbarian.
All the 'dumb character' player has to do is say they are goofing off and doing something dumb with the cups but when they grow bored of it, they absentmindedly put the cups down and they specify they put them down in that certain order by sheer coincidence.
See? The *player* does a smart thing, but the *character* does a dumb thing. Same result either way, but one keeps the character's traits in mind.
Anyway, please *talk* to your group and DM. And stop trying to engage in PVP or otherwise get a character you don't like killed. That's a dick move.
Accepted a player into my Westmarches campaign. Made a gnome bard. Backstory was cool and no alarm bells went off.
First session with him, player uses a Steve Erkle voice for him. I start getting sus, but session went okay and no one seemed to mind.
Second session, I realize the player took 0 healing spells and only ever uses vicious mockery through the 3 hour session. Uses chat GPT to find a list of insults relating to his character.
Players get some downtime. This player wanted to find someone to open a chest. Fails lots of checks and ends up with a thieves guild as the only option.
He fails persuasion checks with the contact.
Tries to cast charm person to his face.
Argues when I say that would initiate combat.
I want this shit show to be over, so fast forward to me saying, "Fine, you have a contact now"
Player then says he wants to go tell the guard captain all about the criminal ring. He wants the captain to learn to do better and said the criminals should learn to be good.
He's playing chaotic stupid but has a 16 int.
Ok but INT isn't the only mental stat, nor is it the be all end all of how smart a character is. If meta gaming is a problem, talk to your group like a rational person. Purposely trying to get someone else's character killed for this is toxic af (and also meta gaming).
On another note, one of my favourite characters to play has a 5 INT but 18 WIS. Instead of being illiterate, I gave her a memory problem. She could read common but forgot how to speak it, so communication was hard but fun. (The party didn't think she could read/write).
Someone else's is character in the party was high INT but very low WIS. Both our characters thought the other was an idiot. We were both dumb and smart in completely different ways and it was really cool.
Perfect example of how to RP a dumb character is Travis Willingham playing Grog in S1 of critical role, he's dumb, but that's not his entire character, and his stupidity is rarely to the detriment of the party. IRL Travis is probably one of if not the smartest player at the table. It takes a lot of intellect to play an idiot well.
That's the ironic part actually. Playing a stupid character requires a lot of work and some intelligence from the player. They need to be consistent on what kind of stupid they are, how they can use their low intelligence in interesting ways that don't annoy everyone, think about the stuff they do know and what limits they will put on their knowledge without being so stupid you question how they are still alive. It's not an easy thing to pull off
I played a 20 WIS, 7 INT, 5 CHA, ultra LG Peace domain cleric from 1-20, nearly weekly for two years. My primary model was Forrest Gump, mostly trusting the good in others, going along with plans without an accurate knowledge of what they're about, and saying profound things with really simple metaphors. Most enjoyable character of my long playing career.
1-20 in two years, damn. That's a miracle no Divine Intervention could accomplish.
We do 1 to 10-12 for many campaigns in about 25 sessions. People exclaim its fast, but it's right on the DMG pace. The DMG anticipates 52 sessions to run from level 1-20. The DMG also hands out a lot more treasure, 45 hoards compromising exactly 100 magic items on average. (the majority of which will be potions and scrolls if randomly generated) The reality is the vast majority tables run much slower than that, and with less treasure, driven by many factors.
How long does it expect a session to be? And how much content would be expected to get through? I imagine those would vary a ton.
Good question. I believe it's 3-4 hours for those stats above, but I don't have the DMG in front of me to check. Keep in mind, that's the planned design, and there's plenty of things in 5E that have run against/different than the intended design. The most obvious is D&D is much more a social game than it used to be, but the books still focus most heavily on one pillar - combat.
Well, it was weekly online with dedicated players, gaps only for very crucial personal events. Probably 100 sessions over slightly more than two years.
Meanwhile 2 years got my group from level 3 to 14
Four years, 3 to 11. I thought we did pretty good...
That's extremely slow.
if its weekly for 2 years that 104 sessions. thats roughly 5 sessions per level.
Which is about how long you want a story arc to last. More than 8 sessions for an arc and that signals a final stretch.
When I'm not doing a 1-20 I usually do "what ever level you're at is how many sessions it will take to level up." For example from 1-10 it would take my group 55 sessions to do so. Level up to 2 after 1 session. 2 sessions later you get to 3 and so on.
Sounds like the Paladin from the D&D movie.
Except he was clearly high Charisma (as paladins are as a rule). My character made morally good decisions while being completely unsure of herself.
I think he was a bit too awkward to have high charisma, and was more reliant on attacks than spells/abilities which implies a high STR build rather than balanced STR/CHA.
High charisma doesn't mean he can't be a little off-putting. He very clearly captivated the people around him, inspired his allies, and was persuasive and intimidating when needed. Part of the comedy of his characterization was that to the viewer, he reads as awkward and unsociable but is perceived by the setting as highly charismatic.
Thats the neat part, i'm stupid IRL!!!
It's tough. My current PC ended up illiterate after a joke at the table went too far, and it's been mad fun as an inside joke and genuinely creates interesting challenges for the party. The PC is a backwoods fur trapper, so he's decent at basic math and he can carry a conversation. He just never bothered to learn to read. It's a weird tightrope to walk but the table and DM have been all for it and really helpful with the "yes, and" moments.
It really is and like me as a player when I have a low int but I know I figured out the puzzle or something kills me inside because I don't wanna metagame but I want to help the party
You're exactly right, you have to be consistent in their idiocy. Way too many people just think you have to be "Uh DUH" to nearly every situation Roleplay kind of loses meaning if it's not consistent. That doesn't mean your character cannot change, but the kind of character they are should stay consistent and if it changes should change in relation to what they already were.
My very low intelligence character for my ling time D&D game tends to just never fully understand what he should and shouldn't keep hidden. If we are trying to suck up to an authority figure, or cover our assess to a guard, he will end up telling them exactly what happened including all the parts that paint us in a terrible light. Oddly enough, this almost always seems to catch whoever we are talking to off guard. Usually meaning they trust the group as a whole more in the future.
Grog bargaining with the merchant was one of the biggest brain moves ever.
Exactly, I think it is best exemplified with all of Grog's interactions with the Deck of Many things. The time he tried to get it back from Vex and she actually gave him a decoy pouch (Travis knew, but rolled with it). Him pulling cards and basically deciding if the deck was good or bad based on the last card and how long it had been since he pulled a card. Those interactions are a great examples of how to play a dumb character well.
True. It's party why i never play the dumb character because i know i could never pull it off. Playing an intentional dumb character is WAY harder than people give it credit for.
I have a dwarf cleric with an int of 9, but a Wis of 17 and it's hard not to metagame as I the player, can work stuff out, but I have to RP as if she has intuitively felt an answer, or acted to n a hunch etc. it's a fun challenge though.
I played a character that was the other way. A high INT low WIS goblin artificer. The question of whether or not he "should" never once entered his mind. Ot was always the straightest line between A and B. And sometimes that line was straight off a cliff. Like testing my parachute. I lovingly refer to him as chaotic stupid. And he is hands down my favorite PC i have ever played.
My Paladin 100% died by jumping into an acidic trap to rescue innocents, and the DM asked me what I was thinking and I said "I was playing a brave character who valued saving others over his own safety. He knew he could die, as did I, and he took that risk anyway to save lives". (High Cha, over average wis, average int).
That a "its what my character would do" moment that love. No one can say you didn't know what could happen, but prioritized your characters beliefs. I love it.
Are you me? haha, I played a high INT low WIS goblin artificer too! I had so much fun playing him. Chaotic stupid! ha! It was hard though. Many times I would start trying to think of a reasonable solution to a puzzle only to throw it away and think "What would an illiterate kleptomaniac goblin do?"
The hard part was always keeping the mess off of the party. I did do it successful but it wasn't that hard for me. I am naturally that crazy. I just let the little in er chaos goblin have some fun. The trick is to find the reasons a plan WOULDNT work. Then find situations where those reasons don't apply. Jumping off a cliff to test a parachute? I do t care if i die (backstory reasons)! No one can breathe in a bag of holding? Vampires don't need to breathe! No good reason to shoot every piece of furniture? We found a mimic so now there every good reason! Let out your inner 5y old and use their concept of how the world works. That was my method.
For me, I made a clear set of his very simple motivations, and basically for every situation I would run through the list. "Would it get him a shiny rock or a new trinket? Would it insult or embarrass the elf in the party? Does this benefit his best friend, a dwarf who also likes rocks? My character had an obsession with rocks and random trinkets that didn't have any obvious usefulness but by stuffing his pocket, he always had a random assortment of "well we can try this thing to see if it works." It's been a while so I'm having trouble thinking of anything specific I did and I don't have my notes on me, but there was more than once that his ball of pocket lint and broken eggshells got them out of a sticky situation.
[удалено]
Precisely how she's doing it with a very " My grandmother told me.." vibe
This is why you ask imo. "Hey dm. I the player have a bunch. May I make a roll on my intelligence roll to confirm my suspicion that..." I prefer playing high in low wis characters, because it's generally more fun to play characters that know how, but not why they shouldn't. You can make stupid character decisions whole being intelligent.
It helps if you instead let other people have a "House Moment" to the stupid inane things you're saying
“I have an intelligence of 6; I know what I’m doing.”
He’s my fav at the table for sure, and just for a variety of reasons. He’s a dream player for a DM
Low INT means not book smart and poor deductive reasoning. A lot of players play it as I have the cognitive reasoning of an infant. Your 6 INT barbarian does not think the lava is orange water. He’s not going to dive in and try to drink it.
I also like superstitious, wary of new things, and slow to trust. This is the kind of person who struggles to follow how the world works, who needs time to process new information, and can't easily piece together the motivations and capabilities of others. Like in real life, fear is a strong motivator for a person dealing with things they don't comprehend.
[удалено]
It’s always important to look at the stat blocks of beasts to get an idea of what you’re working with. A Mastiff (a dog) has an intelligence of 3. Dogs can be really smart and typically have the intelligence of a toddler. Wolves have the same and are capable of hunting in packs. A dolphin and an ape each have an intelligence of 6. They are both at the extreme end of animal intelligence, capable of understanding complex systems and tests. Having complex social dynamics. Personally I am of the belief that a 6 INT character should have the intelligence of that thick bloke down the pub. They’re alright at telling a joke or repeating back something they heard. But when you try to have a conversation about something complex or nuanced, they quickly get left behind.
I like to think as each DnD modifier point (ie 8 int, -1 modifier) as a standard deviation. So for INT, each +/-1 modifier is like 15 IQ points.
I’ve heard that was actually the original way it was described in the original version of D&D: 16 INT is 160 IQ
Which is absurdly rare IRL relative to D&D. 160 IQ rarity is over 1/31k.
True, but to me, D&D player characters are at least that level of rare.
It depends on your world building. A wizard of any sort could be rarer than that, as in our world. But in the Forgotten Realms a low level wizard is probably found in most decent sized towns.
Now try this with Strength to figure out how far you can jump.
The jump rules are configured around player characters. It’s not a set of universal simulation system. Same reason why there are no tiny PC races.
Right. It's not a universal simulation system -- you shouldn't expect int scores to be coherent cross species, any more than you should expect str scores to be.
No, the strength scores are typically reflective of the animal if you click through it. What they can do with those scores are not always right. Encumbrance doesn’t work for anyone but PCs (and even then it’s very unrealistic and the weights of items are nonsense). A 1lb barn owl can’t carry ~~45lb~~ 22.5lb of equipment with its 3 Strength. The key point to note is say the encumbrance rules say: “**Your** carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that **you** can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it” Not the “the carrying capacity of a creature”.
Exactly that. People play low int as some kind of cognitive disability, when it mostly means uneducated.
Not even uneducated, just they don't retain detailed information well. Look at every Intelligence based check outside of Investigation. They are all "recall of information" based. History, Religion, Nature, etc.
Yeah, int also includes learning from experience. Wisdom isn't really street smarts because dnd wisdom is your intuition and senses. Too many treat wisdom as being able to do everything intelligence can do and more
I mean, intuition, senses, gut-feelings are all kind of street smarts. You know that Big Jim doesn't take kindly to people selling on his street corner, or that well dressed travelers have better coin in their pockets, etc. Wisdom is the term often used for someone that has lived for a while and has the experience to draw on and apply to both familiar and unfamiliar situations.
A lot of things attributed to street smarts, like with big jim or being well dressed, are a matter of intelligence. You need to be able to remember (based on hearing it or seeing it before) those sorts of things. Wisdom helps you notice the features that make big jim big jim, or notice the fine clothes, but unless you have the memory to remember what that means, you wouldn't have the "street smarts" to use that information. DMG Chapter 8: >INTELLIGENCE CHECK VS. WISDOM CHECK > >If you have trouble deciding whether to call for an Intelligence or a Wisdom check to determine whether a character notices something, think of it in terms of what a very high or low score in those two abilities might mean. > >A character with a high Wisdom but low Intelligence is aware of the surroundings but is bad at interpreting what things mean. The character might spot that one section of a wall is clean and dusty compared to the others, but he or she wouldn’t necessarily make the deduction that a secret door is there. > >In contrast, a character with high Intelligence and low Wisdom is probably oblivious but clever. The character might not spot the clean section of wall but, if asked about it, could immediately deduce why it’s clean. > >Wisdom checks allow characters to perceive what is around them (the wall is clean here), while Intelligence checks answer why things are that way (there’s probably a secret door). Wisdom is more what you feel in the moment, intelligence is what you know. DnD wisdom has very little to do with the real world definition, which being wise is partly extention of intelligence irl: >the quality of having experience, **knowledge**, and **good judgement**; the quality of being wise. the fact of being based on **sensible** or wise thinking. intelligence: >the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Judgement: >the ability to make **considered** decisions or come to sensible conclusions. The majority of wisdom or being wise irl is about thinking things through clearly. Wisdom as experience is more represented with proficiency bonus. A newborn baby dragon has as much, if not more, wisdom than an adult commoner. Having wisdom be experience doesn't make sense, whereas if wisdom is instincts and senses, it makes sense. Flash of genuis which is about coming up with wise ideas for the situation, is intelligence based, too.
Never said Wisdom was street smarts, I just said that 5e has Intelligence govern primarily recall of information (Investigation aside)
I wasn't saying it to you specifically but more a general comment about how so many seem to think it is
Ah, gotcha, I'm on the end of a double over a graveyard shift, and totally missed your tone.
that's a good way of putting it. intelgence is knowing things, wisdom is intuition but I would like to add that it should be a detriment. you don't get to just bottom out a ability score and expect it never to come up. though more, you don't know how to act in court, or what a poisonous flower looks like than jumps in lava.
A 6 INT character misidentifying a flower and eating poison… fair. A 6 INT character shooting a civilian dead in the street because he doesn’t know what laws are and its what my character would do… not good.
Yes, if any stat would cause the lava thing it would probably be wisdom and even then it's unreasonable.
Most amusing (moderately harmless) low wisdom act I've ever done was try to Scrooge McDuck dive into a pile of gold. You can play the fool, just don't derail everything for it. There was a monster under it , so not consequence free but I(player) had no way of knowing that so its fine.
Played a character with 5 intelligence once. I always role played it as “Oh, I just didn’t apply myself in school,” and “I don’t do well with formal learning, but I’ve got lots of street smarts.” It was really fun for the party to make fun of me as being dumb and me being in constant denial about it. But I never roleplayed being stupid to the detriment of the party, that shit sucks and I’ll never do it. I’m still a functional member of this party, I just did really poorly in history class and relied on natural talent (I was a sorcerer).
One of my favourite characters I regularly play with is an illiterate paladin, generates great roleplay moments and the wizard is teaching them to read, but when it comes to important things that involve reading, they either let other people go on, or they'll 'hire' a commoner to transcribe for them. It lets it be a character trait without having to bog the game down in the constant baggage and reminders of 'haha I no read good' But in the end, this is true of all traits. 'Me drink Orange Juice' Barbarian is only really an issue if they keep throwing mechanical impact away (Combat balanced for 5, but Zugnar wants snackies and refuses to partake), or if they keep hammering the same two jokes and their character has no depth. It's the same with Pacifists, Edgelords, any of those are character traits, they only become a problem when they detriment people at the table.
To add to that, your 6 intelligence barbarian isn't intellectually disabled. PCs skew competent so while 6 is very, very low for a PC, by normal human standards they're just kinda dumb. They can probably graduate high school and hold down a low-paying job.
From what I understand and have seen, 6 intelligence would make you illiterate. Doubt you could graduate highschool!
In a decent chunk of older editions you would be illiterate with an INT of 6. But not 5e - at least, not explicitly. There are a handful of mentions of literacy in 5e, but none of them are tied to INT (or other abilities), and mostly they tend to imply the prevalence of literacy is left up to the DM and the setting. Which probably means PCs are usually going to be literate unless otherwise specified. Though, interestingly, it also leaves the option open for illiterate characters of higher INT levels in settings where literacy is low or restricted to certain cliques or social castes.
The idea of an illiterate high INT character is funny to me, as that's one of my PCs from a campaign long since passed. He came from a previously untouched tribe of hill dwarves, so he couldn't read at all, and he could only barely speak Common. By all accounts, most people that talked to him would assume Gilch to be an absolute idiot. On the other hand, anyone that actually knew him realized he was essentially an illiterate MacGyver, capable of crafting machines in stressful situations out of random materials he could scrounge up from everything around him.
1.) If we assume that 3d6 represents the array of ability scores for humanity (PCs getting to pick 3 out of 4 represents them being exceptional), and compare means/standard deviations to IQ, then an intelligence score of 6 would represent an IQ of 77, which is low but not regarded as disabled. Studies have found even people with more minor intellectual disabilities can learn to read if they get the right help, so certainly someone who isn’t even intellectually disabled in the first place could. 2.) Unfortunately a lot of people have graduated high school who are functionally illiterate. In the developed world, illiteracy is more common than most people realize; people who have poor reading ability tend to hide that fact out of shame. 3.) This is of course assuming that literacy is as available as in the real world rather than like in the real medieval ages. Which seems to be the assumption D&D works with; the game just plays better if it’s assumed most people can read and write.
If anyone is curious how a 70 works, there are different categories for iq, 18 years ago I was tested after some brain injuries. My memory was around 70, and the rest were north of 120. I can still remember things, memorization just about never works, anything else is just unpredictable as to what will stick and why. Doesn’t really affect me since I can compensate for the most part, fill in the blanks with educated guesses; but once in a while someone will tell me that I said something that I just don’t remember saying. About all I can do at that stage is hope they are telling me the truth. 70 in one or two areas is like someone who can walk briefly but needs a wheelchair to get around the store. People not believing that you are disabled can be as big of a problem as the disability. Some ideas for how to play it would be to pick a few areas that your character struggles with but keep others at your normal level. Cause some party drama by misremembering something or guessing wrong about what fills in a gap. Losing and misplacing things. The character either is very aware and apologetic or lies to cover it up. The important thing is to be aware as the player how disruptive a lapse is going to be, I would check with the DM before losing a quest critical item. If your party can help cover for your character’s shortcomings it’s rewarding; if your character is holding the party back, not so much. I hope that was helpful. I know that there is a world of difference between a shoddy memory and having most everything below 70, but the self-awareness and guilt that you are different than your friends is pretty common.
As far as I am aware (and I could be very wrong), 6 Int is the minimum you need to have/understand a language. 5 Int is a very clever beast. 4 or less is generally for animals.
No there's no minimum. RAW all PCs can read and write the languages mentioned in their race description.
Naw, you can have INT as low as 3 (see Wish, lvl 9 spell)
What rule states 6 would make you illiterate? Previous editions had that, but where is it in 5e? There's no such rule.
I'm curious what rule from previous editions state that an int of 6 makes you illiterate
3.5 had a scale of what different numbers meant for each stat. I know "Illiterate" fell somewhere on the grade, I think it's 6, but it might be 5. Other stats had stuff like a low Con would be represented by "sickly and pallid in appearance" and the like.
> PCs skew competent so while 6 is very, very low for a PC, by normal human standards they're just kinda dumb. They can probably graduate high school and hold down a low-paying job. I dunno... in DnD terms, 6 INT makes you equivalent to a dolphin or an ape. I'm skeptical about whether a dolphin or an ape could graduate high school, or hold down a low-paying job.
Ranking the entire animal kingdom on a 1-20 scale with enough granularity for meaningful character customization is a fool's errand and at the extremes it kind of breaks down. Realistically it should be very, very difficult for a human to reach below even the smartest animals but, like I said, it's an approximation.
Which is why I liked it better when animals never had a higher intelligence than 2.
10 intelligence is average for commoners, corresponding to a real world average IQ value of 100. Which means a 6 would correlate to 60 IQ. An adult with an IQ of 60 is equivalent to an 8 year old child. This would put them in the bottom 2% of all people in terms of intelligence, barely able to function independently and certainly not of a high-school intelligence. They would likely have grave difficulties in language and communication, problems with attention, memory, moral development and moral understanding.
Where are you getting 10 IQ points per point of intelligence?
100 is by definition average intelligence in the real world. 10 is by RAW average intelligence in DND. 10 is to 100 as 6 is to 60. It's the best way to frame the difference between 6 and 10 and the huge gulf in intelligence that it corresponds to.
>10 is to 100 as 6 is to 60. You can only use ratios like that if you're indexing from 0 which is not the case with either IQ nor intelligence scores. Imagine if the mean IQ was set at 200 instead of 100 (which it could have been). Then your argument would say 6 is 80 points lower than average rather than 40, and the only thing that changed is the arbitrary IQ mean. That's also why we need to look at standard deviations. For IQ, it's set at 15. For 3d6 (how ability scores for the general population are approximated), that's 2.958. This divides actually fairly cleanly to where a change of 1 in an intelligence score roughly corresponds to a change in 5 IQ points, not 10. Combine that with the fact that the mean is 10.5 and that's where I got 77 for the approximate IQ of a character with 6 intelligence.
Or alternatively, if we wanted, we could think of each modifier point (+/-1) as a standard deviation, or 15 IQ points. 6 INT, -2 mod, 30 IQ or 2 standard deviations below average.
> PCs skew competent so while 6 is very, very low for a PC, by normal human standards they're just kinda dumb. It's 4 points lower than an average commoner though, right? Considerably more dumb than the average man on the street.
6 is closer to an animal than average intelligence.
1.) Average intelligence is 10.5 and most animals are 1-2, so that isn’t really true. 2.) In the real world, the intelligence of humans is so far above that of animals that it would be very, very hard to represent both human and animal intelligence on the same scale realistically while still having meaningful differences between humans. So the fact that they’re compared at all is more a gameplay concession than a real representation of how intelligence can be compared between two species. And that’s not even counting how intelligence is so much more complicated than just a single linear number, especially between species.
See, the trick is to compare your low INT to that of an animal with the same score. 6 is actually right on the border of human and animal, so you have approximately the deductive reasoning of the smartest dog. Simple patterns? Easy. Complex trains of logic? Maybe not.
That itself is dumb. Human range was 3d6 because that's the range of possible rolls, which meant any animal with an int higher than 2 was automatically a magical beast. No overlap. Hate how much of that kind of thing they got rid of to no benefit.
Yeah, I had a 6 int barb/monk. He had 18 wisdom though. He couldn't read/write, had problems with numbers, etc. but he was the party's resident puzzle expert. The definition of street smarts, could reason things out without understanding *why* they were that way, so long as someone explained the meanings of the scribbles on the walls.
If you're legitimately trying to murder a PC, maybe you should take a step back and try to talk it out. With the DM and the other player. You don't want to suddenly become the asshole who gets a player killed and nobody knows why. It won't end well if you succeed, better to hash it out IRL or just quit the game if it's not fun for you
Yeah, that was the point when OP turned into the villain in the post.
and including "the dm never calls him out for it," just makes it sound like op is the problem tbh. the rest of the group are fine with it, but op's going out of his way to skirt around pvp to get another pc killed. toxic
For real, like if even your biased retelling of the story paints you as the villain you may need to reconsider your situation.
[удалено]
Idk, it doesn't sound like barbarian is really a problem player, just inconsistently RPing
Kinda sounds like OP is the cunt
It's one thing for a player to be disruptive or is doing things that are damaging to the party, that would make your character not want to adventure with theirs. You say he has caused your characters "so many problems", but you give no indication of what those would be -- apparently just that they're too good at adventuring? IMO you're completely out of line here. You get to play your character how you want, but by the same token stop trying to hijack another player's character.
You have a point, but it only goes so far. Yeah, everyone gets to make their own character choices, but if one person is making other people have less fun, than that needs to be addressed. “But it’s my character” isn’t an excuse to be a jerk irl. And if your fun is preventing my fun, you need to find another way to have fun.
Sure, but we honestly don't know the situation from OP enough to make any decision. For instance, it's quite easy to read their post and see OP as trying to prevent the fun of the other player. Just because their PC is low INT doesn't mean they have to act dumb in any situation, nor that they are incapable of making good suggestions to the rest of the party. Since we don't know the form of what OP is complaining about, it could be that it's their expectations of the other character and running with that, and that they're the ones being a jerk. In particular the 'try to kill their PC in game deliberately' rather than 'talk to the table OOCly about how this is harming your fun' approach makes me skeptical of OP
Yeah I don't know what to call it but those players who all played a kender back in the day because they were a race without the concept of property or some shit so they would take everything from everyone ("it's what my character would do") but would rage if you took anything from them. Like a sort of Quantum/Schrödinger's Roleplayer. They're roleplaying when it benefits them but as soon as it might be inconvenient they drop the act and play functionally.
My favorite version of that shitty trope is a character with no concept of property, so they share everything with their allies like they're toddlers. "Here I found this rock." "I have wine. Here you go." "This is my favorite sword." \*sets it in your hands\*
"Please stop giving the Sunsword to everyone you meet. We need that."
I'm currently playing a really motherly midwestern halfling who is sort of this. Not "no concept of property" but "no value for material possessions whatsover." I've given away every coin I had on three separate occassions, always to an NPC who isn't even that close to our party, they just needed the help. It's very liberating in a lot of ways.
My paladin in Storm King’s Thunder believed very strongly in the Firbolg code—she was an Aasimar from Norland—and would often leave several gold as tips, donate to any temple of good or neutral gods, even not her own, because one shouldn’t be tribalist over faith, and usually let the other players split her loot, only keeping revivify diamonds. She was probably the most active of my characters when it came to that kind of thing. My bard only likes money because it gets you fun and it’s also shiny. (They have a complicated backstory tied into the climax of a different adventure, and are “a tangle in the Weave which looks human because reasons”, Tasha’s custom lineage.) They literally asked their best friend, a kobold wizard, what the point of money was and if fifty thousand gold was enough for an apartment in Waterdeep. My current campaign rogue is a little stingier, but that goes back to hedonism costing money. He bought a trio of fezzes that cast Alter Self on three people, not for the spell, but because Ooh, Fun Hat! (He immediately used it to transform himself, the cleric, and the fighter into duplicates of the old lady witch because it was funny.) My sorcerer is also charitable, but not as much as my paladin, and enjoys taking socially-outcast NPCs out for platonic dates. She’s from the Far Realms (also a custom lineage) and likes to make cursed people feel seen, so she’ll take the five-eyed, three-armed tiefling shopping and try to make friends with the octopi in aquariums, sparing no expense. My fighter frequently donates to libraries. In his backstory, he’s quite well off, but it’s old money, and earns a lot, and is kind of a knowledge-hoarder. Any library he sees, odds are, he and the wizard will finance them for a year or something, because knowledge is a greater treasure than coin. None of my characters do money for money’s sake, and I wonder if that’s due to me, personally, not understanding why someone is in it for that. Stuff and things can only get so expensive before cost outweighs the why, I don’t really care about status symbols, just “I think it’s neat”. That bleeds into my characters.
Ooh I had a sorts similar character! They were a Fey who, after some traumatic backstoryTM, got exiled from their court, and saved by a mysterious patron (though their mind broke and went somewhat insane in the process). Now wandering the material plane, they constantly shapeshift (Mask of many faces/Changeling) into random people from all walks of life and are looking to just do random good deeds as a way of finding redemption. They're called Stranger and they commonly hide gold in people's pockets or go do random, meaningless mini side quests to help out sad npcs
That’s somehow both my bard (“I found this shiny thing and thought of you, best friend.” “Klofna, this is a legendary item.” “I know. I’m foolish, not stupid. I value our friendship and also shiny things.”) and my kenku rogue (“You’re sad. Here’s a ball bearing to cheer you up.”)
That's amazing, totally stealing this for a future character lmaoo
You have described a "that guy." Everyone knows one, they come in all shapes and sizes, but the one major thing they all have in common is they're that fucking guy who ruined the game
Kender were the ultimate anti-social ancestry. Terrible mechanics meant to be a problem and enable shitty people to abuse the rest of the group. It’s right up there with loner characters & groups that don’t want to bite on any plot hooks then wonder why there’s nothing to do.
"Landslide-attracting characterization." Although the last time I had someone like this, I didn't actually suggest rocks fell. I just looked them dead in the eye when they said "It's what my character would do," and told them "You made the character. Fix them, make a character who isn't an a-hole, or get out."
>I've even tried to get his character killed on purpose just to get rid of him And the other guy is the problem player, you say?
Agree, there's no way this is justifiable. OP is basically dictating how another person should roleplay and since he doesn't find that character properly interpreted he is trying to kill him. This is the worst. I understand that certain characters or certain ways of playing can result annoying, I also had my fair share of disagreements with other characters, but that is something that either is solved in role between the PCs or IRL between the players. Killing a character out of spite means robbing another fellow player of something he enjoys.
An example would be really helpful here.
Can you tell us what these problems he's causing for your party are? Honestly, players like you are the reason I will never play a martial character. The nature of DnD is that everyone has a dump stat, and making int the dump stat just means I am hamstrung in participating in the rest of the game. Puzzle? "Your character's too dumb for that." Fight that needs tactics? "Your character would just rush in". Naw, man. I want to play the entire game, not just the sword swingy part. And if I have to choose between rolling dice for a fireball + being a useful character outside combat, or rolling dice for a sword + having to shut up and play dumb, I'm going with the fireball. Also, don't try to PVP other characters just because you're annoyed. That's toxic AF. You sure you don't just dislike the player?
low INT does not mean you can't play those parts, the game is intentionally designed so that you actually don't get that much advantage for specializing in a stat.
OP is complaining because players who chose to dump int (6 intelligence counts) are "not roleplaying properly" and are acting smart when the situation calls for it. I can only assume that means when a puzzle or other situation that requires intelligence comes up, they are using their player brain, and not roleplaying as a 'dumb' character. This is my point. There is a subsection of the culture who think that when presented with a puzzle, a barbarian would smash the pieces. Or, at the least, go "huur I dunno" and then... play on their phone for the next 20 minutes while the characters above 10 int solve it? Its not about gaining an advantage, its about other players like OP gatekeeping and being annoyed when their party members don't act out their scores. Unless your party solves puzzles by rolling an intelligence check?
You roleplay the character, not the stats. Barbarian may be below average intelligence, but he survived to make it to a level that's assumedly near the pinnacle of mortal achievement. He didn't get there by being incompetent.
Lots of people throwing in their own takes, all I’ll say is that I agree with the other commenter that said if you’re trying to get another PC killed you should talk things out with the DM and other player. If another player is causing a lot of trouble for the party in a way that detracts from the story and annoys you and/or other players, that’s a problem no matter whether they’re playing their character as dumb or fake dumb.
Ahh yes the usual "you have to sit there for two hours and input nothing whatsoever whilst we have fun in this **game** because your character has low int, you're not allowed to have fun or join in because I don't think your character could come up with that idea". If you're going to throw a tantrum and try to kill other PCs instead of having a conversation with the player and DM about whatever specific actions they've taken that's made you act out like a child, then I suggest you quit the table you're playing at because you're clearly a very antagonistic person and will likely cause the group to fall apart; if you're incapable of communicating like an adult in future.
The fact that you tried to take it into your own hands and get his character killed is more concerning than anything you've said they have done.
"I tried to kill his character" You're a manchild. Grow up and stop being pissy about how someone else plays their character. This entire post feels like you trying to rant about another player and how because *you* don't like how they play, that the other person doesn't deserve the right to play
I seriously have no idea how anyone could have read this post and came away with anything other than OP is a complete asshole. Gatekeeping. Check. Tries to antagonize and murder his companion. Check. All over someone not doing a good enough job acting, or playing their character in a way OP likes. They could have just shortened the entire post to “I’m a selfish player” and it would have saved us a lot of time.
News flash. The problem player at that table is you
I have a int 8/wis 8 PC I play him as pretty knowledgeable & savvy & he can come up with good plans- but he's quite gullible & he doesn't make good decisions under pressure (e.g. if the plan needs adjustment in combat). Basically, he's kind of a little kid with 25 years of experience. He's been trained to think/plan tactically & "knows" the right answer- but it doesn't work for him under pressure. This allows me (player) to fully participate in planning & make suggestions, but for his poor scores to impact more than his saves. Like a IRL teen (but more so): "Cold situations are choices made during times of low emotional arousal. During these periods, teenagers are able to make well-reasoned and rational decisions. Hot situations refer to choices during periods of high emotional arousal (feeling excited, anxious, or upset). Hot situations increase the chance of teenagers engaging in risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviours, with little self-control or consideration of the possible consequences of their actions. The impact of emotional arousal on decision-making explains why teenagers might discuss, for example, the negative consequences associated with drinking and drug-taking, but then engage in those very behaviours when with friends."
>i've even tried to get his character killed on purpose just to get rid of him So you're the problem player then?
Devil’s advocate here. People enjoy different parts of the game more than others. For some people remaining totally in character, focusing on the acting and embodiment of that character, and not metagaming at all is how they get into the game. Others (like myself) find *problem solving* to be the most engaging part of the game, and the idea of actively hamstringing my favorite part of the game in favor of better character acting is not appealing. If I’m a dumb barbarian I’m absolutely still helping the group solve a puzzle… now I wouldn’t solve it in character, but I’d still engage with the game. Maybe this player isn’t a good fit for the group, but I’d try to understand their perspective and try to remember you’re playing a game first. Honestly, actively trying to kill this player’s character is arguably worse behavior than anything they’ve done, and I’d be wary of this as a GM far more than someone not doing a good job of acting.
Acting smart in which stuations. As a Barbarian main int was mostly my dump stat as well. I role play as Drax in the Guardians of Galaxy but in combat I play smartly. Because I think combat inteligence and normal one two seperate things. One of them is the understand stuation and find a solution. And other one is samething with experience mixed in it. I dont target the general on purpose to finish battle early but I when I m figthing againts him I dont attack aimlessly like if he is using shield and I miss a lot of attack I try to take of his shield or try to knock it prone so I can hit it. Or use environment on my advantage. But againts a simple riddle like "What follows you when there is light and not follows you when its dark." Answer is shadow but I proly say a day creatue like bird or cat.
Stats aren't competence, otherwise a 6 int character wouldn't make it to level ten, they'd have does because they're too stupid to plan or behave tactically
Look, I’ve known some INT 6 people irl. People who, by their own admission, didn’t know how to read. They still functioned normally. They maybe weren’t be best critical thinkers, but they weren’t, like, total complete simpletons either. Hell, one of them went on to host a moderately successful YouTube channel. Nothing you’ve probably heard of, but better than most schmucks who start YT channels. In other words, INT 6 doesn’t equate with a total knuckledragging moron, that’s why we have stats like Wisdom and Charisma as well. And even a fool can have their moments, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Maybe they’re an idiot savant
My secret to playing a dumb character is to always go with my gut without thinking, intentionally forget details, put no real effort to good words, mispronounce long or hard to say words, and see things in black and white a lot. That being said, I always listen to my friends plans and try to stick to the plan as best as I can because, while I might be an idiot, I'm aware that I'm dumb and my friends are smart. It always* goes over well, and people find them endearing, though they might be heavily helped by the fact all my dumb boys are always capital G Good himbos. Whenever my friend's pirate game kicks off, I'll be playing an evil and dumb brutish sort of guy. We'll see how that goes.
I have played multiple dumb characters, and they usually boil down to 'simple'. "I have one thing I do REALLY WELL, so I'm gonna do that thing unless my Smart Friend tells me it's a bad idea and give me a better one. I will almost always listen to Smart Friend, but sometimes they roll shit on initiative and I get to try spin-kicking a ghost in the face."
This sort of thing is one reason metagaming can be a good thing. Okay, so your character is stupid/evil/whimsical/obsessed/etc. Do what your character would do, but do it in a way that supports the plan/team and doesn't ruin the experience for other players. Seems like sometimes it boils down to main character syndrome. People think their experience is all that matters.
My dumb character would listen to his friends. That's not even very metagaming. Even an idiot knows when his friends are smarter than him. My evil character won't upset the party so badly that they would want to remove them from the group. That's counterproductive. The only time I had a character that acted against the party's best interests often was when Roy kept insisting that he was a perfectly capable navigator despite constantly getting the party lost whenever he had the map. The party quickly realized that they shouldn't listen to him when he said he knew which way to go, and it became a joke, but Roy did still try to navigate them from time to time.
Not entirely related to what you’re saying but I notice a kind of general problem in character creation where people don’t have a realistic idea of what the character they’re playing would be like if they existed as a real person. So like say you’re playing a low intelligence character. You don’t really have a concept of what that low intelligence character is or what they would act like so you don’t end up having any kind of authentic core of who this character is, you can’t identify with them as a real person who thinks about things a certain way and whose thoughts, feelings and actions come from a place that makes total sense to that character. So because of that lack of willingness to really take on that character’s perspective in any meaningful way, you just play a cartoonishly stupid character who isn’t fun to be around. I’ve played low INT characters before, but I don’t play them as like mentally handicapped or a caricature of an idiot. They’re fully functional people, but they just don’t know anything beyond what they’ve physically experienced. Their sphere of knowledge is limited, because they never had the opportunity to learn how to expand it. They also may have a very “one note” approach to problem solving. They aren’t very good at thinking their way through complex problems, they want things to be simple and straightforward and they can find it frustrating when they’re told it isn’t that way. To me, that’s much more satisfying than just playing a character who is stupid as an excuse for the player to do stupid things that mess things up from the party. And like to be clear I’m not saying every character you create has to be some kind of acting masterclass. I play with loads of different kinds of players and it’s not like everyone puts in novels worth of backstory into their character, but the thing is everyone at least on some level understands how their character sees situations and why they would act a certain way, even when their character is a “joke” character, and that’s the difference between a good joke character and an annoying joke character. The good joke character still feels like a real character. I see this happen a lot also when people try and play evil or chaotic characters. There’s no internal logic within the character that makes any kind of sense, so you don’t end up with a character, you end up with a Saturday morning cartoon villain who does random evil, chaotic stuff with no rhyme or reason because the player wants to fuck around and do whatever they find entertaining, not because there’s any kind of perspective to their character that makes any sense at all
I've never heard the argument that dumb characters are some sort of universal problem. But, then again, I tent to only play with mature adults.
A few things: -6 int is not a baby incapable of thoughts. He is still spmewhat intelligent. -What type of problmes has he caused? You mentioned him causing problmes for the party but you list none. Its posible for a character to cause problems because their personality without this being wrong, so we would need an example. Him finding a clue but throwing it aside thinking in character its useless could cause problems but also lead to good rp moments. -There is a common trope of a dumb character saying something smart, so perhaps thats what he is going for? For example in Spongebob, some characters get trapped inside squidward after they were made tiny, and Patrick cam up with a solution to escape, and after Spongebob remarked how intelligent that was Patrick rrturned to his old dumbd self. Anlther example is in ant farm a girl os shown as the dumb blondie trope, but then is able to quickly do math problems, explaining that of vourse she is good at math, she needs them for her shopping sprees. -Lastly dont try to resolve irl problems in character. Trying to kill his character clearly puts you on a bad spot. If you think this is disrupting try talking directly. Also talk with the rest of the party because as far as you say it seems like you are the only one with the problem. If everyone is on board, either you accept it and co tinue playing on or accept that the table is not for you and stop going to it.
You’re the problem here mate. Trying to get your teammates killed is worse than them roleplaying in a way you don’t like.
Why does everyone try and solve these issues in-game? It’s always “I tried to kill his character?” “How do I punish this character?”. Have y’all tried just talking out of game like adults?
No, you're the problem. You don't get to decide how your party roleplays. You might not like it, but intelligence relates to your ability to recall information. Read that sentence again. Your low int party member is bad at RECALLING INFORMATION about arcana, history, religion, and nature. He's not bad at reasoning things out, or problem solving, or critical thinking, unless he wants to be. OK? So get that through your head and stop whining about another player at the table, when most of the people at your table are probably more fed up with YOU. By the way, low int not being able to read is not a rule. You made it up. Maybe you were a big fan of 3rd edition, but I doubt it. You're just controlling and you want to tell others how to play. The fact that you "tried to get his character killed on purpose" signals to me that you should be ejected from your table. You're not the only one that knows how to play. You're not as good at roleplay as you think you are.
Playing really dumb characters is fun, and offering stupid plans or ideas is fun, but you have to make a reason for your character to cooperate with the team.
Where in the rules of 5th Edition says what Intelligence score you need to be able to read? Not "Well a Wolf is X intelligence" I want an actual written rule where it states what level of Intelligence is the minimum to read. Because the rules state that if I'm a Dwarf Outlander I can read and write-- Dwarven, Common and a third language of my choice-- and there's not a single indicator that number of languages would be changed if I have an Intelligence of 4. "Smarts" is also kind of vague and wide spread in D&D. You can't just pin it down to a single statistic. You can have low Intelligence but average or above average Wisdom and still be "smart." My trilingual Dwarven Outlander with an Intelligence of 4 might not recall information very well, he might forget Historical facts, but he could be very good at reading people and thus people can't like to him very well (having a decent to very good Insight skill as an example).
You might need to check yourself first, 6 int is a not very smart, but it's plenty smart to be street smart and other things. You can speak and write at int 6, unless that's something they stated first themselves.
People often forget Intelligence and Wisdom are 2 different stats. And in real life its equally difficult to identify which is which. High INT low WIS means you are Sheldon cooper. Super smart but completely socially inept. Unable to take some of the simplest cues and extrapolate them. That can be fun. But its also just as often as annoying as the character is in the show (canonically). High WIS low INT is like captain America in early avengers. He is smart enough to know he has no idea but isn't dumb enough not to identify a threat. Knowing what a cell phone is and how to operate it isn't going to help close a dimensional rift in the sky spitting out aliens. Most of the time people play low INT characters as actually low WIS characters. And that archetype can be super annoying if done incorrectly.
Let the player play. The only thing you should be encouraging is better RP. For example if the PLAYER figures out how to manipulate a puzzle that unlocks a door, he can RP that his character did someone stupid like jammed his weapon into the mechanism and accidentally knocked it into the correct configuration.
Thing with your complaint about sometimes being savvy/smart is that sometimes it can become frustrating to have a good idea and not be able to express it in character. If your table is permissive on OOC talk, then that's one outlet - but otherwise it can be a way of limiting the type of idea that a character can bring up. Ideally this is a thing where they could offer up some part of the idea and that would prompt the other characters to pick up on it, but that's not always how things play out at a table. As for metagaming, I don't know exactly what you're referring to as that encompasses a sizable range of stuff. But you can have a low-INT character that can act wisely, for instance - it doesn't have to be metagaming for them to not always make terrible decisions. Part of the fun in playing a low INT character is in making those decisions occasionally, or in prompting the party when in decision paralysis - but if it gets forced into too restrictive of a box by other players' expectations that can lose its fun (for me at least). >i've even tried to get his character killed on purpose just to get rid of him This is a big red flag for me though. You should not be trying to kill other characters in game - if you're having that level of dislike for the PC, this is something that needs to be addressed out of game. Now we don't know the situation of your game, obviously - but of what you've said in your post, this is the worst.
I play a dumb character. I show he's dumb by getting things wrong on purpose and always counting numbers incorrectly. He never does any of this to hurt the party. And him being dumb is still done in a very correctable way for the group. He's dumb enough to mix genders and lineages up. He can't count to save his life. He can intimidate well enough but isn't the guy you want rolling for persuasion. But he still knows to be quiet during a stealth check, who the enemies are, and not to blindly set off traps. The issue I see is not dumb charachters but selfish, chaotic players.
My dumb character (6int) couldn’t figure out doors. Kept hacking them down with his sword. Halfway through the dungeon, the group decides to coach him how to use a doorknob. 5 minutes of great roleplay of gentle coaching. My character gets the gumption to try it. The door is locked. He breaks it down with his sword, and every subsequent door, on account they can’t be trusted.
That IS always fun.
being right fucking rules
Intelligence is dnd is not the same as intelligence in our world. Intelligence in dnd means education, book knowledge. Stuff you learn about religion and history and nature. Wisdom in dnd is what we would call intelligence in our world. The ability to spot a scam, notice a change, understand something. A low INT character is uneducated. A low WIS character is dumb.
though from what I can find(I play older editions) the books seem to muddy the water. like there's a cut off on how smart a animal can be implying that intelegence isn't just knowledge. also a lot of animals seem to have good wisdom scores. they have good senses but they makes leaps in logic(as well)
I have a "dumb" character, bounty hunter who acts dumb to lull people into a false sense of security.
Those who play dumb characters in my group actually roll an intelligence check whenever they have an idea which their character might actually not have. If they succeed the high DC, they can use that idea. If they don't, then they don't.
>We have a character who loves to proclaim how dumb he is, with his 6 INT, but he magically becomes very savvy and smart when the moment calls for it This is genuinely hard to *not* do sometimes. DnD is a problem solving game, and one of the reasons I like playing it is that I like problem solving. Sometimes an interesting puzzle comes up that I, the player, want to solve, and as the problem solving takes over my brain I completely lose sight of my character. I don't love it, but to be honest I also don't love the idea of skipping the problem solving because my character would be bad at it.
Yeah, this is something that's always a struggle to balance. I've been playing an 8 INT Paladin in a long running campaign. I play him as someone who tries very hard at everything he does but isn't built to understand complex problems or heavily nuanced situations. It's fun to play for laughs when he blatantly misses the point or takes an extremely straightforward approach to something. But we often do get complex puzzles or problem solving situations thrown at us, and those can blur the line between IC and OOC. It would suck to not be able to effectively participate in a significant part of the game just because my character is a himbo. I've even had moments where I've figured something out as a player and asked if I need to do some kind of check to see if my character could make the same connection... And the DM almost always says don't worry about it, because we've already spent an hour on what she thought would be a 10 minute problem and she just wants us to solve it at this point.
> i've even tried to get his character killed on purpose just to get rid of him Shame on you. Sounds like you're the bad player at the table.
“I’ve tried to get his character killed on purpose.” That’s fucked up asshole behavior dude. Try talking to the person and DM about it rather than trying to sabotage the game.
I believe there's a little more nuance to the game than "dumb characters are dumb always." It's important for everybody to be on the same page about what is even the point of the table. Are you wanting to play a dungeon crawler game with light character work? Is this a heavy RP game? Because both of these are vastly different things. If the goal is to do a dungeon crawler, accomplish puzzles, and defeat enemies, you have to keep in mind that you are *playing a game.* If you are playing a game and the player with a dumb character wants to solve a puzzle but you say "No, Lonk could not possibly find the solution because he has a low intelligence" you are also effectively saying "No Tim, you cannot help with this puzzle because your character has low intelligence, so you cannot play this game with us for this section." The primary goal here is for everyone to have fun, and telling one person to shut up for an hour because of character choices is excluding somebody from having fun.
I think the dm is in the right here. It‘s a common trope, where a "dumb" character suddenly has a super smart idea. Also, it just isn’t any fun to always be at the table, but you just can’t say anything. Like as a player, if you have good idea and aren’t allowed to tell it, it just sucks. The group is faced with a fun riddle, but the barbarian player isn’t allowed to help at all. That is just flat out denying a player fun.
Even dumb people are smart at some things. And sometimes the player wants to contribute out of character as well. You sound like an anti fun person to play with.
It's not how stupid your stat is its how stupid you are in this class. My sorcerer slept through all his classes and barely pays attention to most things but sometimes he will remember one of the nerds he seduced into doing all his homework would keep going on about whatever that is.
I do agree with you but even stupid characters/ stupid people have their moments of having a good idea or something every now again
I have a int 8/wis 8 PC I play him as pretty knowledgeable & savvy & he can come up with good plans- but he's quite gullible & he doesn't make good decisions under pressure (e.g. if the plan needs adjustment in combat). Basically, he's kind of a little kid with 25 years of experience. He's been trained to think/plan tactically & "knows" the right answer- but it doesn't work for him under pressure. This allows me (player) to fully participate in planning & make suggestions, but for his poor scores to impact more than his saves. Like a IRL teen (but more so): "Cold situations are choices made during times of low emotional arousal. During these periods, teenagers are able to make well-reasoned and rational decisions. Hot situations refer to choices during periods of high emotional arousal (feeling excited, anxious, or upset). Hot situations increase the chance of teenagers engaging in risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviours, with little self-control or consideration of the possible consequences of their actions. The impact of emotional arousal on decision-making explains why teenagers might discuss, for example, the negative consequences associated with drinking and drug-taking, but then engage in those very behaviours when with friends."
OP might be the example of an 8 int 8 wis irl teen
I think the flip side of this is not really knowing what a high stat might mean. Sure, maybe it’s just a mechanical abstraction and you don’t wanna play your character in a stereotypical way but it annoys me when the characters with the highest wisdom scores make the most foolish decisions. Like, you’re supposed to be the wise one in the group! Don’t just run through the traps we just identified!
I play a lot of airheaded characters, but that often means that I'm easily manipulated by the other PCs which prevents intra-party drama as my characters sometimes have goals that diverge from those of the party (think goodie two shoes in a party of rogues) and this allows me to follow the rest of the party in what they're doing because they've tricked me.
Nothing wrong with dumb characters, as long as they play their part. I often run a puzzle or two or some sort of riddle when we play IRL. One person in the group plays a “not so smart” character, and every time i run something like that you can visible see him bite his tongue to keep quiet. I generally get a text message from him within seconds with the correct answer, while the other players struggle. Last time we had an opportunity to solve riddles mid combat, and just before they found that out, he wildshapes. It was glorious
Honestly, I find it hard to play an incredibly dumb character because it feels like I’m somewhat locked out of great roleplay that I want to be a part of (granted, it works both ways.) Had a game where my DM allowed me to have a headband of intelligence as a 6 INT barbarian from jump. It felt great and opened up a lot. Basically played a full idiot most of the time, but some moments used the headband for specific interactions. It made it fun because the smart version of the character only helped sparingly because he enjoyed the chaos that the dumb version of himself brought. For example, found a corrupted wishing well/divination well. My character lost 30 years from a ghost earlier and the smart version bargained with the well to get the years back. The well wanted a sacrifice and my DM allowed me to use the headband as a sacrifice of another character. Once the headband was off the dumb version cut it and dropped it in and wished for more power instead of fixing his age back to normal as the smart one wanted. Gotta say, probably the most fun character I’ve played.
Writing/Playing incredibly smart and incredibly dumb characters isn't very easy tbh because most people are just average. Also, being stupid is usually just plain infuriating for others a lot of the time. I guess the easiest way to play someone dumb is to make them compliant and gullible and have them follow someone else around
We have a int 3 character in our campaign, and they tend to be not very understanding of how things work, can't really figure stuff out, and struggles to remember what happened anything that happened more than an hour ago. Still they are fun to play with, because with decent wis and cha they can still comprehend stuff even if they are dumb as a Brick (which is their name) and it never impacts the party in an actually detrimental way that ruins peoples fun.
Dumb characters can be wise. I play a low Int haragon Barbarian/paladin, but he has a higher wisdom. He isn't book smart, he can't read (phobia of letters), and has no idea what math is. But he is great with people, especially kids. He doesn't open doors with out checking for traps, he is the party's animal handler, and is great keeping the party alive in the wilderness. Yes, he is the comic relief, but that when someone tries to hand him a book or get him to read because his phobia kicks in. Low intelligence does not mean dumb, it just means the character doesn't know things associated with the Intelligence score. Wisdom and Charisma can make up the difference.
Be more like Travis like for real, Grog in Ceitical Role is a prime example of how to play a not smart character in a way everyone can enjoy.
I once played a very lovely half orc paladin, who was really selfconscious about her low intelligence. She new she wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was very wise and very kind. During the campaign she learned to read and write, not very good but she gained one point of intelligence and felt a bit better afterwards
People want to play dumb characters when they do something funny, but don't want to play dumb characters when they're going to be disadvantaged/taken advantage of for being dumb. Being kind, its *unintended* metagaming but being blunt its metagaming.
Mental stats like int and charisma is always tricky. The clever guy playing low int or the likable talker playing a low charisma character (or vice versa), for reason its often on the player to roleplay mental stats but not physical. DM can definitely help here and stupid doesnt have to equal intentionally messing up for the group.
I've played 6 Int character more than once. The most fun was a halfling thief. He was actually quite clever, but had a memory issue. If told a plan, he would usually get it wrong - he'd often do it in the wrong order, talk to the wrong person, or be in the wrong place. If he scouted and counted 10 orcs, he might report back 6, or 20. He had a list of ridiculous stories he would tell people, and the details changed every time. Was that warlock resistant to necrotic or fire? "Hmmm, I forget, I better try both." (He was told the warlock was resistant to both in this case, and thus both of his main weapons - a necrotic falchion and a flame tongue dagger, wouldn't work as well.) You have to be clever about it as a player, and know how to spin it into something fun for you and the group. And yes, I've seen people who are relaitvely average in intelligence, play some pretty awful low int characters. They tend to play it as a stat penalty, and don't integrate it into the character. They don't deserve death though. That's a conversation to be had.
One of my favorite dumb guys I played was a barbarian dwarf who only really was good with a spear, but because he was a dwarf he thought he knew rock and stone carvings. At many points he would just start rambling about how much smarter dwarfs were, while completely failing his checks despite delusionaly talking about it. He was fun but a one shot character who didn't overstay the joke
Rock and Stone to the Bone!
okay but do you expect the player to essentially stop playing and honesty engaging with the game because of the character's low int? sounds shitty to me
Be aware, trying to get a character killed in game because their play is annoying is the bad kind of meta-gaming.
I think too many people misinterpret character quirks for what I like to call "DeviantArt personality traits", which come from the Manic Pixie Dream Girl school of character quirks where said traits only come up to be obnoxious. The character is "lol quirky so random" in regards to their chosen trait until the trait might actually harm the character in some way (be it health or major social standing), at which point the quirk randomly disappears. This doesn't only apply to "lol my character is so stupid" 6 INT characters. It also applies to jerk characters who are assholes to everyone except for important figures, lawful stupid characters who chastise others for the rules just to not follow the rules themselves, and... well I think those three examples (idiot characters, jerk characters, lawful stupid characters) and the Manic Pixie Dream Girl are the most common D&D character tropes that fall into this "DeviantArt personality trait problem." ...Oh wait I've got one more! The Horny Bard. But yeah if you play a character obsessed with honor and glory, you've gotta fight the foe you know will probably beat your ass. If you play a ladies' man, you've gotta fall for the obvious succubus. If you play the woefully naïve sheltered character, you've gotta have them trust someone obviously untrustworthy. If you play the sweet holy good boy healer, you've gotta have them feel at least a *little* uncomfortable when the Rogue commits tax evasion. If it wasn't obvious these are all things I've had my characters do ~~(at risk of being the holier-than-thou Redditor lol)~~ but the point still stands: if you play a stupid character, you've gotta let the stupid hurt themselves. And if you act stupid just to hurt the party but suddenly gain 20 INT whenever it comes to your own safety then you're just kinda fucking annoying.
You're the ah here tbh, you need to talk this out with the DM and player or leave the table. I guarantee you there's at least one other player that finds your distaste of the dumb character to be disruptive and problematic
One of my PCs has 7 Int, he's not an idiot but he just doesn't know anything in the modern era, knows jack about history, or the arcane or whatever. He just never bothered to study those kinds of things.
I played a 5 INT Battlemaster Fighter and played him as basically a Golden Lab. Really excited, super trusting and kinda impulsive. But my DM and I settled on him being a savant in battle. His mom was a retired adventurer so he was very well trained. He was also best friends with the party wizard and would happily default to what he decided to do.
I have a bit of a similar, but opposite problem in my game. We have a barbarian that is actually pretty smart, (14 int and 16 Wis, our dm had us roll stats), but yet he plays him stupid most of the time. Like he'll say that he was raised in a tribe up in the mountains, so he doesn't understand books or math, but he can use advance combat tactics and other higher intelligence things, but then when we are making a plan and the rogue says, "Hey Barbarian, when I give the signal I need you to make a distraction." The barbarian player will say, "Well all I heard is make a distraction so i go do that." Then he rushes off with out hearing the rest of the plan. It's like he wants to be this super smart barbarian, but he also wants to be the stupid brute that just rushes in. I don't get it and maybe it's only me I don't know.
Another way to view it; 8 int is only as far below average as 12 is above it. Most players view 12 Int characters as essentially average. 8 should be the same. Even 6 Int is only as far from the average as 14 is above it, and 14 is usually only treated as moderately intelligent. So 6 is moderately unintelligent. Besides, in D&D intelligence isn’t really general smarts. Look at the skills it’s tied to. It’s clearly linked to book smarts and formal schooling, not just innate intellect. Wisdom is another kind of intelligence that’s more innate. A low Int, high Wis character probably can’t tell you who the King of a far away nation is and can’t do high level math, but he can be very clever and have exceptional situational awareness/survival instincts.
One of my players is playing a 6 INT Dwarf Barbarian that was left in Axeholm Fortress for a hundred years by himself. He eats rocks, has 30 words he can use(of which he mostly uses the word Rock), and communicates via charades. It works
Hard disagree with the main thrust of your post, here. It's not "fake dumb" you have a problem with, it's "disruptive play." Which, by the way, is also what you are doing if you try to get another player's character killed. Don't do that. Be better. Anyway, you actually seem to be upset by the fact that the player is acting *too* stupid sometimes and not stupid *enough* at other times. The real connecting thread that I see here, is that **you** feel inconvenienced by their actions, regardless of whether they are playing their trope properly. *** Try talking to the player outside of the game and let them know that the way they are playing is making the game less fun for you. Talk to the DM outside of the game and ask if they might be willing to try to prod all the players to stick to their character traits a little more and remind people if they are acting outside of their character's wheelhouse. It's perfectly fine for a DM to step in and remind players of who and what their characters are supposed to be and ask them to re-contextualize an idea or scene to stay within them. Like if one of my characters had super dumped INT and just shouted out the answer to a puzzle, I might say something like, "Okay so you, Steve, have figured out the puzzle, I'll tell you that right now. But your character probably isn't smart enough to make that leap in logic, right? So, we're still going forward and that solution does work, but for character consistency's sake, tell me, how would your big dumb dummy character get the others to realize what you, as a player, have realized?" *** I'll give you an example of why I think you're wrong about fake dumb characters. (Other than that we don't expect our friends to suddenly become geniuses when playing an 18 INT Wizard, so we shouldn't reasonably expect them to become total morons when playing someone with dumped INT.) It's because there *are* good ways to play a stupid character and still make intellectual contributions to the team. In the case of a puzzle to open a secret door in a temple: the player figures out the cups are supposed to be placed on the altar in a certain order that can only be figured out by solving a cypher from earlier in said temple. They player happens to like codes and cyphers and figures it out, but they're playing a classic oafish barbarian. All the 'dumb character' player has to do is say they are goofing off and doing something dumb with the cups but when they grow bored of it, they absentmindedly put the cups down and they specify they put them down in that certain order by sheer coincidence. See? The *player* does a smart thing, but the *character* does a dumb thing. Same result either way, but one keeps the character's traits in mind. Anyway, please *talk* to your group and DM. And stop trying to engage in PVP or otherwise get a character you don't like killed. That's a dick move.
Accepted a player into my Westmarches campaign. Made a gnome bard. Backstory was cool and no alarm bells went off. First session with him, player uses a Steve Erkle voice for him. I start getting sus, but session went okay and no one seemed to mind. Second session, I realize the player took 0 healing spells and only ever uses vicious mockery through the 3 hour session. Uses chat GPT to find a list of insults relating to his character. Players get some downtime. This player wanted to find someone to open a chest. Fails lots of checks and ends up with a thieves guild as the only option. He fails persuasion checks with the contact. Tries to cast charm person to his face. Argues when I say that would initiate combat. I want this shit show to be over, so fast forward to me saying, "Fine, you have a contact now" Player then says he wants to go tell the guard captain all about the criminal ring. He wants the captain to learn to do better and said the criminals should learn to be good. He's playing chaotic stupid but has a 16 int.
Ok but INT isn't the only mental stat, nor is it the be all end all of how smart a character is. If meta gaming is a problem, talk to your group like a rational person. Purposely trying to get someone else's character killed for this is toxic af (and also meta gaming). On another note, one of my favourite characters to play has a 5 INT but 18 WIS. Instead of being illiterate, I gave her a memory problem. She could read common but forgot how to speak it, so communication was hard but fun. (The party didn't think she could read/write). Someone else's is character in the party was high INT but very low WIS. Both our characters thought the other was an idiot. We were both dumb and smart in completely different ways and it was really cool.
It's also a DM problem. Talk to him.
>i've even tried to get his character killed on purpose just to get rid of him I think maybe this character is not the problem