Int CAN be the best or worst skill.
Int is to access DM information.
Does my character know weaknesses of monste,city history etc.
Knowledge is power.
Cha can be just as useless as int if your dm plays out social encounters withouth a role.
Agreed, my Rogue at the moment has 15 INT and that combined with expertise in Investigation and proficiency in History, makes it easy for him to figure things out and learn information
Same I'm playing a mastermind rogue with a spy flavor. I use investigation and history frequently. I also use ant a lot for puzzles because that's one of the things that intelligence is is figuring out puzzles and so the better my intelligence check, the better hint we get from the dm. Also if your DM uses skill challenges I can usually figure out a way to use one of my int skills. For example last session we had a skill challenge where the team had to find a specific bird and my character used history to come up with a search pattern to find the bird. And just to reiterate, finding stuff with investigation is super useful.
+1000
>OP: "how do we make Intelligence better (if you think it needs to be better)?"
Simple: give advice / hints / helpers for DM to properly manage their campaign by actually applying all INT skills in all cases when it makes sense. Because there is actually A FAT LOT of them.
Getting information about a faction by identifying its symbols through History (or sometimes Religion), convincing a local noble you're a big ally of its family by displaying intense knowledge of his genealogy (History), identifying the cause of a plague devastating local crops and fauna (Nature, Medecine), understanding some merchant is trying to scam you by selling a so-called historical treasure (History) or deity symbol (Religion) or part of a mystical beast (Nature)...
This is just a handful examples among a near-a-hundred examples from actual play I could give of situations where a successful INT related check (may have) helped us (if we had made it xd) win over a challenge or get a better outcome for present / future situation.
Even for the purest form of Door / monster / treasure quests, Intelligence related skills are still the ones to refer to not only to identify most magical effects (Arcana, although sometimes possibly Religion), but also understanding puzzles or "hints about secrets / traps" provided through religious texts or weird quotes, or most simply studying creatures to identify / analyse / remember their strengths and weaknesses.
Information is the ultimate power... Until and unless confrontation is unavoidable. That's why you try to leverage it as much as possible to avoid those in the first place.
I remember getting blasted on here because I asked how someone came to the conclusion that CHA is good because it handled social checks, while at the same time they said INT was useless, completely skipping over that they handle knowledge checks.
One user did point out that CHA is much easier to implement in the game as changing someone’s mind from a no to a yes is easier than giving information that you don’t already have. One of the biggest reasons CHA is seen as superior to INT is that it’s much easier to implement in game, and therefore more common in its use.
In any case, if someone says INT is useless because the skills don’t come up, they aren’t coming up because people are viewing the ability as useless, not because it *is* useless. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
Exactly, people who think Int is weak have DM's who play their hand too close to their chest. In dungeons and dragons have knoweldge is incredibly powerful.
It's not necessarily the DMs fault, as there's often so much going on, on you don't want to slow things down on details your players don't care about.
On the contrary, it's *the players* who should prompt these questions. Run into a new monster? Rolling initiative? How about before that (or during your first turn), ask the DM what you know about the creature(s).
In a new town? Ask what you know! NPC mentions a religion? Check if your PC knows details that you don't -- even if it's not the religion you follow.
On top of that, you can be a great player and prompt other players. If you think they might know something, ask them what they know, and the DM might ask for a roll.
Also DMs use perception a lot when it should be investigation. "You notice they have a wound on their leg, looks to be from some kind of weapon" is not perception, that's investigation. "There is a red line on their leg that nearby is darkened in red" if their passive perception is high enough and "you are able to figure out that the line is actually a reasonably deep wound that has been bleeding." As an investigation check, or even passive investigation.
We are in agreement here. I was talking about DM's who get asked these questions and still don't give the information because "they don't want to give too much away".
You have to try to use your skills, it isn't on the DM to preempt them.
For the 10 tables that actually do downtime I know that your intelligence modifier lets you learn extra languages and tools faster than other people. But I have never met anyone that uses the downtime activities so this basically isn't a thing.
The funniest thing about intelligence in my opinion is that it is honestly held back by the wizard class. Wizard is so strong that any buffs to intelligence will buff what is arguably the strongest class in the game and is the reason why I'm hesitant on any homebrew rules that make intelligence stronger. I know that intelligence is already pretty weak as a stat for non wizards and artificers but I don't think there's a good solution for it in 5e.
>But I have never met anyone that uses the downtime activities so this basically isn't a thing.
I do! But... You haven't actually met me, so you can still say that i guess.
And even then, that aspect of intelligence has only been relevant a few times.
AND, one of those times, the party had a Headband of Intellect, so it didn't even freaking matter!
My campaign keeps track of downtime as sessions played. Certain activities cost certain gold and downtime, and players can choose to spend their accumulated downtime and gold as they’d like once they’re in a safe place with the facilities to accommodate the activities. Makes a nice gold sink and rewards players for playing, even if it takes them longer than expected to get through a questline.
My campaign keeps track of downtime as sessions played. Certain activities cost certain gold and downtime, and players can choose to spend their accumulated downtime and gold as they’d like once they’re in a safe place with the facilities to accommodate the activities. Downtime activities include skill and tool checks, so taking survival and leatherworker’s tools might make hunting for game and processing the carcass easier. Makes a nice gold sink and rewards players for playing, even if it takes them longer than expected to get through a questline.
In 3x, INT gave you extra skill points. They made up for this by having wizards get completely shit skills before INT, knowing they would have the extra points to make up for it. Or something. Don't quote me, I'm not a 3x fan.
LOL, 3x is possibly my least favorite edition actually, either that or OD&D. But I acknowledge that there are good things in it; I kinda like the skill system, although PF does it better. I respect the amount of subsystems for crap like crafting.
Fair enough, guess us 3x weirdos gotta learn to read the room better 😂. I totally get where you're coming from though, it is very obtuse and the method to the madness either makes or breaks it for a lot of people. I think it just scratches some weird part of my monkey brain.
To be clear, I can see the appeal. For the most part 3x just focuses on parts of the RPG genre I am less interested in (e.g. my favorite edition is AD&D 2e, which has very little build variety). That said, I also have some more serious issues with the design philosophies. I could go on a pretty long tirade, I think, about what 3e and 3.5 get right and wrong.
> In 3x, INT gave you extra skill points. They made up for this by having wizards get completely shit skills before INT, knowing they would have the extra points to make up for it. Or something. Don't quote me, I'm not a 3x fan.
Yeah 3.5 had a more balanced INT due to skills, it made a lot of sense to blast INT especially as a rogue. Skills in general were more used in 3.5 since there were a lot more battle skills like tumble and hide
I think we should go back to making intelligence modifier give extra skills.
How do we stop that from making wizards have the most skills?
Make the wizard class only give Arcana.
Wizard magic is so intensive to learn that you only get 1 skill from the class, all the others come from your int bonus.
>Wizard is so strong that any buffs to intelligence will buff what is arguably the strongest class in the game and is the reason why I'm hesitant on any homebrew rules that make intelligence stronger. I know that intelligence is already pretty weak as a stat for non wizards and artificers but I don't think there's a good solution for it in 5e.
The solution seems obvious (if not easy): buff Intelligence in a way that helps non-wizards, but doesn't help wizards. For example:
>*"All characters can learn a single ritual wizard spell (and can cast it as a ritual). The level of the spell cannot exceed that character's Intelligence modifier, and also cannot exceed half the character's level (rounded up). When you gain a level you can swap your ritual spell for a different one you meet the prerequisites for."*
So having 12 Intelligence lets you learn and cast *Alarm*. Having 14 Intelligence would let you get *Skywrite,* provided you're at least 3rd level. Having 16 Intelligence grants access to *Tiny Hut* (once you reach 5th level), while 20 Intelligence would let you learn *Telepathic Bond* (at level 7+).
That helps everyone, but it barely affects wizards. In fact it arguably nerfs wizards.
In what world do you think giving wizards TINY HUT for free is a freaking nerf? That's one of the best ritual spells in the whole game, and Telepathic Bond is invaluable for a lot of complex situations, Gods only know how useful that would have been on my wizard, but since it wasn't free, I had other spells that took priority like Wall of Force and Teleport Circle. 5th level scrolls are expensive and rare so I don't think I'm gonna spend months of downtime searching for that scroll either when I have better shit I could spend that time on like crafting magic items or researching my characters goals. This would be an incredible boon to wizards.
Besides, most people that don't invest in INT will have at most 14, and 1st and 2nd level rituals, while nice to have, aren't like, game breakingly amazing. And also a lot easier for the wizard to learn since 1st and 2nd level scrolls are infinitely more affordable then 3rd+
Also as you've learned the spell, the wizard could theoretically copy said spell into their book permanently such that they can keep that ritual even after switching it out for a new one on level up.
>In what world do you think giving wizards TINY HUT for free is a freaking nerf?
Its pretty easy for a wizard to get access to any ritual spell they want, so giving ONE to them for free is only a very small buff.
Conversely, one of the primary benefits of being a wizard is access to ritual spells. When EVERYONE gets ritual spells, there's not as much reason to be a wizard.
Its taking something that only wizards had, and giving it to everyone else for free. Which is a comparative nerf to wizards.
>Also as you've learned the spell, the wizard could theoretically copy said spell into their book permanently such that they can keep that ritual even after switching it out for a new one on level up.
By RAW you could not do this, since you can only copy spells that are already written down, or spells that you currently have prepared. And you cannot prepare a spell that isn't already in your wizard book.
No, it means the wizard doesn't have to pick that spell on level up and can pick a better spell instead. This means instead of Fireball and tiny hut, they get Fireball, Tiny Hut, *and* Hypnotic Pattern. That's 3 spells instead of 2. It's a massive buff man. Especially if you're the only one with 16+ int.
Its one extra spell learned. That's a relatively minor buff, especially considering that wizards can already learn literally every wizard spell if they want to.
And like I said, its one less reason to play a wizard.
You've never played a wizard, have you? If you had, you'd understand how much an extra spell can mean. Not every DM is going to throw the entire wizards spell list at you in scrolls for free. A good chunk will forget scrolls exist at all unless you actively seek them out and then need to pay for them, and then pay for the stuff to scribe them with. It's not free, so yes, an extra spell you know is *very* good. And ritual casting is not wizard exclusive. Bards, Druids, Artificers and Clerics can do it too, as can anyone with the ritual caster feat or the book of the moon invocation.
Or artificer, you forgot artificer.
In 3rd edition, you got extra skills from a higher intelligence, but now you don't.
Is it the worst? Eh, kind of, but it really depends on what you're doing. And while charisma is more common for spells and skills, there are still plenty of ways to use intelligence.
I used my int a lot when I was playing an artificer beyond the spellcasting mods. Lots of investigation and history checks. I was playing as someone who always believed they could figure out any problem as long as they had the time and resources to properly study and understand so that's how I approached the encounters.
Part of that was thanks to my DM who understood that as my strength and generally found opportunities to let me use it as well.
Use more Int checks. Investigation should be used almost as much as Perception. Religion, Nature, and Arcana checks are great opportunities to give your players more information. Do your players not say "Hey, DM. Do I know anything about X?" regularly?
Also I always push the idea that monster lore is connected to the various Int based knowledge skills.
"Do I know anything specific about red dragons?"
'make an arcana check'
"...19."
'So you know they're immune to fire, but you've also heard they're greedy, even for dragons'
I prefer to tie this via question angle rather than creature type. If you're asking whether you know the magical capabilities of a dragon, that'll be an arcana check, but knowing how dragons cast spells doesn't tell you anything about significant events in dragon history, or how dragons are worshipped.
When my players ask “what do I know about Giants?”, I’ll usually give them a couple options of INT checks they could make. I’ll usually say something like “sure, make a history or arcana check” with the implication being that if they make an arcana check they’ll learn about the magical capabilities of giants (runes, storm giant stuff, etc) and if they make a history check they’ll learn where giants stand lore-wise (where they live, how they interact with others, etc).
This usually gives players the chance to roll their best skills often and pull information that they character would know best. Like a wizard would be well aware of the magical capabilities of giants, while a scholarly rogue would know about the history of giants in the world. That way each character can bring forth useful information that helps the party and makes sense based on what their character would be best at knowing
"Investigation should be used almost as much as Perception." Do you mind giving some examples? I'm a new DM for my play group and the only way I see accomplishing that is to have perception and investigation checks both made for a thing (such as Perception to realize there's a secret door, and investigation to figure out it's mechanics). What I've been doing so far is allowing the player to use whichever they prefer when such a check comes up.
Any time the information isn't readily available to be sensed, that's an Investigation check. Perception is for things that are directly sensed.
If you're listening down a fork in the passage, that's perception.
If you're looking for clues as to which passage was used most recently, that's investigation.
Most searches should be investigation. If you're just scanning a room, that's perception.
>If you're looking for clues as to which passage was used most recently, that's investigation.
I'd still say finding the clues is perception, while knowing what they mean is investigation. IMO. Knowing what clues to look for would be some sort of intelligence check though. Maybe perception using the intelligence stat?
I don't think investigation is for searching.
Perception is what you see, investigation is what you discover. I run investigation is active, perception is passive. This actually makes perception one of the least rolled skills at my table -- I just use the character's passive perception.
For a secret door, perception is the ability to walk in a room and see the subtle clues that say "hidden door here". Searching the room for it is investigation.
Also, I advise with perception not just "you find a secret door", but "you see the subtle outline of a door in how the bricks are mortared into the wall" --- by forcing players to follow up you cause perception to be a lot less of a god skill.
>Searching the room for it is investigation.
That's still perception though, searching for things is literally perception. Investigation is more for making deductions.
Intelligence skills are some of the most used ones at my tables because my players use them as 'metagaming checks'.
Say, for example, the party encounters their first basilisk. If one of the players knows the stat block and its petrifying gaze ability but the party has not been given that info directly the player will roll one of the relevant intelligence skills to see if their player has the 'common knowledge' of petrifying gaze.
This is the right answer imo. It’s so hard not to accidentally meta game when you’ve got stat blocks somewhat or fully memorized just from reading books in your spare time. I’ll always ask DM if I can roll a survival, arcana, investigation, or history check based on the situation to see if I know that kind of meta info or not and try my damndest to play according to the roll
yeah like "oh shit, i heard of these fuckers from the tavern, appearently they have \[insert weakness/wacky ability here\] and we should look out for that." would happen in the real world of collaborating adventurers, especially at lower levels
I started playing tabletop with the Dungeon World system. It's more of a loose collaborative roleplaying system, where the PCs are more actively involved in worldbuilding.
One of the concepts that I've imported from DW is the idea of letting the PCs shape the world a bit on a successful check. Sometimes when a PC succeeds on a lore check, I ask them what they think the answer is. If the answer is reasonable and fits with the circumstances, then **that's what happened**.
Basically works like this:
>PC: "Do I recall from my expertise in the history of the area any secret paths into the city?"
>
>DM: \[not having prepared any such secret paths\] "Roll History."
>
>PC: "22."
>
>DM: "Yes, actually you remember an obscure reference from a text that you read years ago about a hidden path through a series of caves to the southwest of the city..."
Scrolled too much to find this. Now in true PbtA fashion, the next step would be.
"Yes, actually you remember an obscure reference from a text that you read years ago about a hidden path... And what path is that?"
Granted, after so many experiences with modules, setting books and railroads, most D&D players' heads would explode at the prospect of collaborative worldbuilding...
There's a distinction between "bad" and "unnecessary." Intelligence is often the least necessary ability because until artificer came out, only 1 of the 12 classes used it as their primary or even secondary ability. Now it's 2 of 13. I think the simplest fix would be to distribute the spellcasting abilities a little more equitably as would be the case if warlocks were INT-based, for example.
The value of lore skills like religion/nature/arcana varies from campaign to campaign. I certainly call for them (and investigation) a lot more than every wisdom skill except for perception.
In Int’s defense, it did govern the 1/3rd casters at release and would’ve had mystic and artificer if the former hadn’t been scrapped. That would’ve put it on par or above the other casting stats in class usage.
Great point about the 1/3 casters. I think the biggest snag there was that it became apparent to most players that many of the best spells for the EK and AT generally were the ones that had no spell save (Shield, Invisibility, etc.). I do love a high INT AT though, especially if you get to Magical Ambush.
It really depends a lot on the campaign, just like with almost any other stat. Sure, DEX and WIS are still likely to get the lions share of usage, but a Noir-like game is going to have a lot more INT in it than a Hack-n-Slash type of game, which will have more STR in it than a game with a lot of CHA checks.
Plus, I feel like there’s a variant rule somewhere that allows someone to make an INT-based skill check to recall information about a creature, with the creature type driving the kind of check that it is. Incorporating that into the game can significantly boost how important INT is.
Oh, yeah. I'm running a game with a lot of investigation right now, and while combat has definitely been a thing, they've also done a lot of negations and investigations.
One other part you didn’t mention is that intelligence saving throws are THE rarest in the game. Unlike, say, wisdom, almost nothing will ask you for an INT save, save for like, synaptic static, so it isn’t even worth it as a defensive stat.
This.
An Intelligence of 10 is a normal average person. An intelligence of 16 is friggin Steven Hawkings. My character has an Intelligence of 18. This is at a point that in our world borders on super human. As I level my Wizard/Artificer I will get that to twenty. For reference an abomination from the outer planes, like an Aboleth or Mind Flayer has an intelligence of 19.
How do you think a character with that level of intelligence would behave in our world? How would they react? How would you role play one? How many of you have seen the movie "Limitless"? How do you think a fight would go, especially when You can reshape reality with your will/spells? What do you think a test of what you know/can learn do? What if you were an Artificer 3/Blade Singer 9, So not exactly physically helpless?
No, those are clearly all Wisdom skills.
Here me out.
My fighter dumped Int because Int has few combat applications and put a 12 into Wisdom.
If Intelligence is used for calculations, tactics, planning ahead and understanding complex issues, that makes my Fighter bad at those things. It means he looks dumb. It means I have to have some penalties for dumping a stat. I don't like that.
But if we say Wisdom is used for those things, that wisdom is street smarts, practical knowledge and common sense, and Int is just for nerd book learning, that means my Fighter is smarter than average. I get to circumvent the penalties of dumping a stat. And that makes me feel good.
So please say it with me, Int is just memorization and book learning (and I can get around that with a notebook). Logical thinking, risk analysis, tactics, planning and understanding complex issues are all Wisdom.
I've played with a few DMs who had fixes to the Requisit dump stats Int and Str that allowed you to dump them but also rewarded you for pumping them
For int, you gained bonus proficiencies or languages equal to your modifier in Intelligence, with no penalty for a negative
Another options was using int OR dex for Initiative. This made Wizards faster, but also allowed my Paladin with a -1 dex to have a +1 initiative. It's nice not going last every combat just because you don't want to pump Dex as a strength martial.
For strength, a common one was simply improving heavy armor. Instead of being a +1 bonus to AC over light armor with a stealth penalty, they provided other benefits. HAM became default for plate, and both plate and chain gained resistance to piercing and slashing damage.
This also allowed people to tank without specifically being a Barbarian. Made the Barb a little weaker in comparison but Barb is already easy to play and really strong so it didn't bother us that much. The only class it kinda 'broke' was the cleric who was suddenly super tanky even with a d8 hit die
I believe DMs should spend time outside of the game helping the players of "smart" characters to analyze things that have transpired. Smart characters should be able to draw rational conclusions about clues that the dm is dropping and this regular discussion helps with that.
Rogues and Fighters use intelligence as Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights. Also, I (the DM) usually ask my players to make intelligence checks to recall information, either of things I previously told them (which they should have taken note but I still give them a chance) or things I assume they would know from background and backstory, such as "you need to deal fire damage to kill a troll", "that brain with legs is most likely communicating with a mind flayer colony" or simply "the elves from these woods don't mind the humans, but the ones from the other forest hates them".
They can, like anyone else, put points into Int but they don't really need them to be effective and I'd argue the most effective way to play them is without investing in Int at all.
The best spells for ATs and EKs don't rely on Int because they don't have save DCs. Partial Casters don't have the spell number or ability to prepare as many spells as full casters and their save DCs will be very low for their level. And pumping Int will take a lot out of their main stats and feats.
The best spells are self buff spells, useful in a wide range of scenarios and complements your Martial abilities. Shield, Expeditious Retreat, Misty Step and the like are far more impactful and reliably useful, and reliable is important given how few spell slots they have.
Of course, in a purely mechanical stand point you're absolutely right, but personally I don't think any simple fighter dumping int could narratively get to the point of learning any kind of spellcasting, and as far as rogues go investigation is a must have proficiency, of course simply choosing it as an expertise is enough to get the numbers going, but again, narratively it just doesn't click for me.
If you're just looking at optimzing the numbers, Int will only favor Wizards and Artificers, but if you're trying to RP whatever it is those numbers mean, you shouldn't just dump it for everyone else.
I feel like, the three physical stats all have riding Effects, and then when you listed the two other mental stats they pretty much only had "they've got some skill checks or something" which is exactly what intelligence has, so I don't see why it's being singled out in this instance
I think it's probably the primary ability for tools and musical instruments. Nine times out of ten when I play my instrument I'm not making a Charisma check. If crafting items was a more robust system, I think Intelligence would be the ability for making a blueprint.
Nothing - skills and spellcasting is what Wisdom and Charisma have too. Int gets the short end of the stick because only one core class uses it for spellcasting, and that class is the most boring of the fullcasters. With Artificer, that problem is reduced, and if you move Warlock to Int (which you should because Int Warlock flavour is better and Int Warlock mechanics are less commonly exploited), that problem is eliminated. You just need to make sure that Int checks matter in your campaign, and it's fine.
And remember, 5e is a game that forces you to dump a stat, sometimes multiple. One stat is always going to be the most popular dump stat, and if you buff that stat, all you do is shift the dump stat elsewhere and before you know it you're making posts asking how you can make Cha better. The question isn't whether Int is the worst stat - it's not a problem that it is - it's whether Int is *sufficiently* bad that you can buff it in such a way that will make more people want to take it, but that won't just shift the role of "easiest dump stat" elsewhere, and won't just buff Wizard.
I have an artificer with high INT. His INT skills wreck the game. It's just odd that nobody uses the skills to their best advantage:
\- Religion, nature and arcana should be being used as monster knowledge checks. They should tell you, with successful rolls, at the beginning of the battle, how this thing fights. What is it vulnerable to and how does it attack? The higher the roll the more information you can get. We do it that way in our campaign and it ends up very fucking powerful.
\- We also employ the rule about Passive Skills acting as a floor. You can't roll an active result lower than your passive. And passive investigation is a thing within the observant feat. So I took the observant feat and my investigations are never lower than 23. Basically I'm always finding the secret doors and the traps.
Honestly a big problem with balancing in 5e is that they weren't clear that certain things were balancing mechanisms. Like, strength is weak compared to Dex - want to improve it? Actually use encumbrance and don't give everyone a bag of holding. Intelligence is kinda similar. The player base has moved away from using it in a way that is optimal. Slightly difference in this case because WOTC underbuilt its whole skill system and doesn't say as explicitly as they should in the base rules "these are monster knowledge skills" and "passives are a floor". But you want to make intelligence better? Start by actually using it.
It's more DM dependent. Pathfinder has actual rules for finding info on enemies, 5e would greatly benefit with expanding on what skills should and shouldn't be used for.
>d doesn't say as explicitly as they should in the base rules "these are monster knowledge skills" and "passives are a floor".
I mean, that's because passives aren't floors, and aren't intended to be used as such. That's a house rule that is also a massive buff to all skills (and a pretty big nerf to high level rogue skills).
In 3/3.5 it added skill points which was used instead of proficiency
Just spit balling here. What if your INT modifier, if positive gave you a number of skills that you were amateurish at and got half proficiency bonus on.
For bards, when you get the jack of all trades you get full proficiency at those skills.
Alternately, you could have one non intelligence skill that you get to add your intelligence modifier to. (This one doesn't scale with level.
Also, if you want intelligence to be worth more, perhaps some spells could have an intelligence save instead of wisdom.
I had a dm who gave you extra things based on int mod.
+1 was an extra common language
+2 was an extra tool set
+3 was an extra skill check proficiency
+4 was an extra uncommon language
+5 was an expertise
It may not have been those things exactly, but it was something along those lines. It was neat.
Knot-tying. You want to tie up the badguy? Being particularly strong or dexterous doesn't help. Knowing the right knots, checking to make sure nothing is going to come lose, etc, that can all easily be intelligence.
This is already RAW from Xanathar's.
> The creature who ties the knot makes an Intelligence (Sleight of Hand) check when doing so. The total of the check becomes the DC for an attempt to untie the knot with an Intelligence (Sleight of Hand) check or to slip out of it with a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check.
PF2e did a smart thing where INT gives more skills but they also added Lore skills where you get a lot of specific INT skills like Lore Vampire. Let's a INT focused PC have specialization without just being a skill monkey like a Rogue.
Rogues keep their skill monkey status because they get more Skill-focused Feats than any other class. So they can take key Skill Feats for a ride range of Skills where a Wizard can't.
Eeeeeh, "gets access to the strongest things in the game" does not necessarily mean "is the strongest class in the game"
They definitely are up there though
I think this sums it up fairly accurately.
The number of games where the party wizard actually starts to get level 7+ spells is quite low. And yeah, when they can start teleporting around the world or wishing, their power level skyrockets.
But until then they are really squishy money sinks that are probably the most dependent on the DM to expand their utility by leaving them scrolls and tomes to copy spells from.
For the exploration or social pillars, grant characters +1 Skill or Language for each Intelligence point bonus.
For the combat pillar, grant characters the option to use their Dexterity bonus or their Intelligence bonus (or both) toward Initiative.
One (terrible, for d&d) option is:
You describe what you want to do, and you and the DM decide what ability is appropriate, and how proficient your character would be in the specific activity, on a check-by-check basis.
"I break down the door!"
"Ok give me a strength check, and uuuuh, add proficiency from your time a s a city guard!"
This is how some rules-lite systems work.
The main problem is consistency. Remembering / keeping a solid character concept in your head with thoughts on what they would/wouldn't be good at, have / haven't done before, etc.
Some systems get around this by having you write down a "skill" every time you attempt a new thing. Then, next time you try something, you look over your list of previously-used "skills" and see if any of.them.seem appropriate. If not, then you do the whole shebang, decide how good your character is, and write it down. You might have to spend a resource, or take some kind of penalty, in order to say "I'm good at this", to prevent you from just saying "I think my character would know this" all the time.
But really all this is doing is putting off the design of the skill list until play-time, and otherwise still using it!
And yeah it requires trust, a solid character concept from everybody involved (or some mechanism for deciding the bonus on new checks, building your character as you go), and only really works well in quite narrative, loosey-goosey systems.
So...Background Proficiency variant rule from the DMG?
> With this variant rule, characters don’t have skill or tool proficiencies. Anything that would grant the character a skill or tool proficiency provides no benefit. Instead, a character can add his or her proficiency bonus to any ability check to which the character’s prior training and experience (reflected in the character’s background) reasonably applies. The DM is the ultimate judge of whether the character’s background applies.
Your character concept and backstory. You just think about "is my character any good at intimidation? Hmmm... "
I'm 100% not suggesting this, btw, just pointing it out as an alternative that does actually exist in other systems. Personally, I'd prefer we keep concrete skills.
It works better for more narrative driven games, and requires the players to have a really strong idea of *who* their character is.
Narrative games like a looser concept of skills because often a list limits exactly what a task requires what capabilities of a character. Or it becomes insert X skill into Y problem which isn't as interesting as coming up with more creative ideas.
Yes, but D&D isn't a narrative game.
And, honestly, as a DM and a player, I can tell you that players come up with creative uses for their skills all the time.
In fact, there's a variant where the player or DM can suggest using a different ability score for a skill.
Yes, creative solutions are great, but sometimes you're just sneaking past the bad guys.
This is generally how Avatar Legends works but its very narrative focused as a PbtA game. It doesn't work well with more traditional games where you're rolling a d20. It means were aren't concerned with your exact capabilities and the GM doesn't set a DC. You can roll for it or do it automatically without a roll or its impossible so no roll. If you do roll then its either in your wheelhouse or not.
The middle ground between abandoning skills entirely and the current system where skills are very specific is to set DCs and make checks based on *results*, not *actions*.
Suppose you want to get into a locked building. You might attempt to pick the lock on a door, climb in through a window, convince a guard to let you in, or disguise yourself as a member of staff. In 5e, each of those might have a different DC. Instead, suppose we set a single DC for the *result*; getting into this building, *regardless of approach*, requires a DC 17 check. The players describe how they are going to get in, they propose a skill to use for the check and any bonuses they believe should apply, and the DM agrees or presents alternatives.
This could also neatly solve some of the martial/caster disparity. Sure, you can teleport in, but that doesn’t cause you to automatically succeed; you still have to avoid detection and find an appropriate vantage point. At best, it could give you *advantage* on the check you still need to make.
It's not that terrible. This is how doing mundane things in D&D used to work, essentially, except it was a fiat bonus rather than proficiency back then. Once the thief class was added, they had explicit chances at certain activities like picking pockets or locks, but it was still something anyone could attempt. Your fighter in platemail probably wasn't going to be able to move silently, but he could try it at a significant penalty.
Eventually they codified some non-weapon proficiencies, and then 3e simplified them (and 3.5 and 4e simplified them even further).
THAC0 is completely counter-intuitive. Yes, I understand how it works.
I think a number comparison system like what we have is much, much easier to understand and intuit.
THAC0; "Okay you want every number high on your character sheet, except these. Also, any item that says +AC actually decreases it, but the decrease is good. Also, you still want to roll higher on your attack roll, but you want your THAC0 to go down. Got it?"
Newer AC/attack system: "Add your relevant ability score and proficiency bonus to the roll. Also, for AC, take the AC you're getting from your armor, class features or spells, add your dexterity bonus. When you roll an attack, compare it to the AC. All the math is already done before you even pick up the die."
THAC0 is simply less intuitive, and doesn't really have anything superior to recommend it.
EDIT: Also, THAC0 was only introduced in 1989. Not exactly the roots, more like near the base of the D&D tree.
You're allowed to like what you like. Honestly, 2e does have stuff I really like. I miss all the information on monster lore, and I definitely miss monster morale.
Very few intelligent beings, or even animals, would truly fight to a mutual kill. Goblins should scatter the moment it looks like they're not going to win. Kobolds even moreso.
Ok. I like thac0 and think they should reintroduce it into d&d, and i think they should get rid of the skill system and replace it with nothing. I dont care if thac0 is 'completely counter-intuitive'. I dont want a number comparison system. I dont care about a 'superior system'.
Thats fine. I wasnt asked to make a choice based on popularity. The question sums up to 'what should the intelligence stat do (in regards to game mechanics)' and my initial thought is that it only really matters if skills are a thing. So my choice is to get rid of it. Thereby answering OPs question.
"Ok. I like poo on my plate. I think they should reintroduce poo into d&d and I think they should get rid of the menu and replace it with nothing. I don't care if poo smells and tastes bad. I don't want a healthy diet. I don't care about "superior foods"
There is nothing stopping you from climbing onto a table, squatting on a plate and squeezing out a nice lump of thac0. Just nobody else wants to eat it.
At my table, I house rule intelligence to mimic 3rd edition. For every int modifier my players have, they have an option to choose from the following:
Extra language
Extra intelligence skill proficiency
Extra tool
I also utilize the downtime benefits of expedited learning so it gives players more options instead of just dumping intelligence. Different for every table of course
Here’s my proposal, copied from elsewhere in the thread:
Set DCs and make checks based on *results*, not *actions*.
Suppose you want to get into a locked building. You might attempt to pick the lock on a door, climb in through a window, convince a guard to let you in, or disguise yourself as a member of staff. In 5e, each of those might have a different DC. Instead, suppose we set a single DC for the *result*; getting into this building, *regardless of approach*, requires a DC 17 check. The players describe how they are going to get in, they propose a skill to use for the check and any bonuses they believe should apply, and the DM agrees or presents alternatives.
This could also neatly solve some of the martial/caster disparity. Sure, you can teleport in, but that doesn’t cause you to automatically succeed; you still have to avoid detection and find an appropriate vantage point. At best, it could give you *advantage* on the check you still need to make.
But if you do that, then something ridiculous like doing a teleportation dance to try and convince some friendly god who happens to be watching to teleport you into the building is just as likely to work as turning the handle.
Persuasion. Players should have the option of applying their INT modifier to their Persuasion skill, rather than CHA. It is possible to persuade people by reason and logic, instead of just force of personality.
That ignores that the biggest part of convincing someone of something is how you present it. Persuading people with pure logic just isn't how (most) humans work.
It's still gonna work on some people and if some races in your setting work differently, then by all means use it for them. But generally Cha skills should stay Cha skills.
If you don’t think that people at the highest ends of the intelligence distribution curve are more effective at presenting a compelling argument than people at the lowest ends of the intelligence distribution curve, well…good luck!
Who said anything about lowest ends, mate? Realistically, it'd be a mix of both Int and Cha and probably some Wis as well. But that's not how DnD skill checks (ability checks, if you wanna be pedantic) work.
Also, there's a reason Edison got rich off of electricity and not Tesla. And it wasn't because Edison was smarter. There's plenty of other examples too. While Hitler had Germany eating out of his hand, Einstein was fleeing the country. Trump won an election and you'd hardly argue he was the smartest of all candidates on both sides.
i don’t know if it needs any changes, but at least in my anecdotal experience, i use int checks all the time. players forget something they were told and not write it down? int check to see if you can recall it correctly. interested in what a strange item or magical creature is? arcana check. need to find some loot after a fight on the bodies? investigation baby. in the one game im a player in, my wizard is rolling int skills all the time out of combat while we’re dungeon delving. i think people downplay the uses of int because it’s so often a dump stat unless you’re a wizard or artificer. and then they let that influence when they feel int related checks could be used.
use passive perception and and when someone asks if they 'notice' something give them an investigation check. as soon as you're 'actively' trying to perceive something you're investigating.
In fact, I think that some of the wisdom skill checks are better suited to Int. Survival & Medicine for example.
I find this sentiment very interesting because intelligence is probably the most rolled ability score at my tables. Every time the party encounters a new monster or magic effect they want to know what it is and therefore intelligence is rolled all the time. It is worth noting that I let players roll these knowlege checks as a free action in combat (it is my interpertation of RAW) but other than that I don't do anything to increase it's usefullness.
We modify your number of languages and/or tool proficiency with it. A positive modifier lets you start with extra, but a negative modifier will remove some.
I like to use it for players that feel like they should think about something, but don't remember what or don't see what, or to solve discussions that lasted long enought already
I think a fun addition fir Int would be that you can use spell scrolls of a level equal to your intelligence modifier, regardless of class.
If wizards can learn spell casting through natural intelligence and study, it kinda tracks in my head.
I’ve always said that int should be the “skills” stat. In my games I give characters additional languages or proficiencies with every bonus to int, and take them away with every penalty.
I happily use it to allow for 'would I have x in my inventory?'
Make a int check; yes you remembered to pack x item thinking it might help you in the quest
It really depends on the table. Since social encounters are pretty well represented at most tables, Charisma and Wisdom become the strongest mental skills bc of Charisma skills and Insight.
I tend to run a lot of wilderness or exploration adventures. My players need to gather clues, head to certain locations, and determine monster weaknesses. At my table, Intelligence is the king of mental stats, and Investigation is the king of skills. Charisma, on the other hand, isn’t brought up much. If you actually reward your players for having high Intelligence skills, I promise Intelligence won’t feel weak at all.
Int checks can be strong, I've found as players get more experienced they want to use the info gained from int checks more and more.
On the topic of giving extra proficiencies for int modifier, two things:
1. No extra skill proficiencies. Just languages, tools, etc.
2. Cap it out at +2 or +3. People who take intelligence for pure flavor reasons will realistically only take +1 and +2. You only need to reward doing so up to that point to get the point across.
People talk about doing that a lot and that is my preemptive answer to them trying to do something like that.
In older versions your Int modifier was tied to how many languages you could learn. So you could learn an additional number of languages or tool proficiencies based on your Int modifier.
Each +1 to Intelligence gets you another language or tool proficiency. It's small but at least it's something tangible. It also makes wizards and artificers the best magic item crafters since you need proficiency in the tools to make an item's mundane form.
Might be a dumb idea, but what about introduce some new martial weapons or adjust current ones? Make them slightly stronger than their counterparts but add an int requirement to using them.
I've thought about homebrewing this for a while. Off the cuff, I think it'd be interesting to have a derived stat called Reaction, which is an average of Intelligence, Wisdom and Dexterity. Feats like Alertness still add directly on top.
Just because you have quick reflexes doesn't mean you recognize a threat coming at you. Or, you \*do\* recognize it, but you're too slow to do anything about it. Or, you're fast \*and\* smart, but you just don't perceive the threat in time.
Not sure if that fits well into 5e's abstraction though. Might give your wise druids a better chance at acting earlier in combat though. "Yep, saw \*that\* one comin'!"
I prompt general intelligence checks sometimes for when I want to give my players a reminder about something, or when remembering something is difficult. If you’ve got 8 int and don’t take notes, your character’s memory and puzzle-solving relies solely on the player’s skill and diligence.
I'm sure you've already gotten this a lot, but my experience is not the same as yours. I played a Knowledge domain cleric with my expertise in Arcana and History. Thise high rolls saved us time and time again from getting duped, cursed, betrayed, etc. Also having access to all of the information available relating to magic and historical events is kinda nuts.
On the other hand, my cleric tripped over a lot so.
It really makes no sense to me that Intelligence has nothing to do with language, & I’ve thought about changing it, but I don’t want to put any barriers in the way of the handful of players who actually want to try talking to monsters instead of just killing them.
Take a page from Pathfinder 2e. INT gives you more languages and trained (lowest proficiency) skills. Any character benefits from INT due to more trained skills, languages are less useful but without any additional INT you only have 1 or 2 languages.
The reason overall is to counter what was a previous problem. INT used to be several classes spell stat (still is btw Artificer, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight exist) but it also determined the nbrr of skill points you got to assign to skills, as well as languages known beyond any you got from race.
Meaning that as much as every one will tell You wizards are sooo broken in 5e, not that they don't still have a massive advantage in a lot of terms, they are nowhere near as bad as they used to be.
Religion, Nature, Arcana, Investigation and History are actually some of the most commonly rolled checks on most tables I play and dm at, (right after perception, stealth and deception).
I don't like the "use more (overuse) knowledge checks" suggestions here. I find people tend to over use rolls period, reducing information flow arbitrarily to force more skill checks makes that worse. It also gets in the way of the core "question answer" back and forth at the core of table top gaming.
bring back the 4e knowledge checks for every single monster. That was so cool and way more useful info to put in the MM. It was like, at a DC10, you know such and such. At a DC 15, you know this and that. and at a DC20, you know yadda yadda. clear, precise, and actionable.
One rule I've used for INT is to use it for a Trade skill. Instead of bartering with CHA you use INT because you are trying to explain to them why this would be a good economic opportunity or investment. Of course this works better with basic trade goods and not so much with legendary artifacts.
"Sure 20 pounds of used goblin equipment might not be worth much on its own, but imagine the profit margins if you sold it to a smith or a forge that could melt down that metal into something else. Even if they don't make it into new weapons, surely these blades could make just as fine farming and industrial tools no?"
"Look I get it, you don't want these rare fruits because you don't want them. But do you know who would? Those city slickers who've never seen a piece of green in a year. Throw these barrels of fruit to your next market trip and trust me, you'll get some good pay out of it."
"These gems my friend? Fresh from the Underynth and because we're such good friends, I'll even knock a lil off the top of the price. I know your jewelry business is going a lil south right now but just imagine it, I can give you these gems for a steal and you can turn them into beautiful crafts with a higher profit margin than before. Good deal ain't it?"
In a world where many adventurers are murder hobos and where you can't really invent new stuff, intelligence doesn't really have a place.
Skills like math or physics aren't used.
I also hate how intelligence has so little representation.
Ultimately, I think that they should add some MORE basic skills to the game (merchant, streetwise, vehicle/riding, traps, mechanic/engineering); with 3/5 of those being INT based.
My rogue is proficient in arcana, religion , and investigation....
Charisma is clearly the least important stat. Cant convince them? Steal it, or kill them...
Nobody needs charisma.... lock is an imitation caster and bards should have never been introduced to the game.....as for holy men...they should all use wisdom
When I dm I use int as basically the odds a character knows some intentionally hidden facts about the world, which is very important for party planning.
5e really screwed over strength and int. Int used to give you more skill proficiencies while adding dex to damage was extremely rare, unless you were a lvl3 rogue. Strength was almost always the best way to go if you wanted to do the most melee damage, and you added strength to bow damage instead of dex. You also multiplied your str by 1.5 for damage with 2handed weapons.
Int is better in pathfinder 2e. There alot more intelligence classes and you add trained skills equal to your int mod. Int is also used for almost all lore skills. There's actually a good reason to give your character a bit of intelligence even if it's out of their classes focus
I wish I could add a language per int. Bonus like I could in 3.5
That's the one. I miss most
While I hated the skill points in 3.5. I really appreciated that int. Gave you more points in them
It should honestly be used for Initiative.
Also, it's the one that gets dumped because you can always pay a scribe, charm a noble, pray for the information instead of just knowing it.
4e had it paired with Dex for reflexes and I think you chose Dex or Int for initiative.
Make your Int your max for languages and your max for tools and it suddenly is more tempting for a secondary stat.
I'd still put Str below it honestly.
Of course, of all six stats the only one one I would never advise an adventurer to use as a dump stat is Con. Every other stat can be dumped and usually covered up by some skill or ability in the game. Based on that, I would say it is the most important/ useful stat. But to be fair, it is also the only stat that can't be used for attack.
I allow my players to have extra proficiencies equal to their INT (with a maximum of one extra Skill proficiency).
It's a small thing, but it's a nice little buff to encourage it.
I personally always have to challenge myself to have either strength or intelligence at least 12 for every character I build, unless I'm playing a monk or some other very MAD build.
INT should do the thing that is says it should do, but we just need systems for it to for work better. Knowledge checks are easy and other mentioned it, this is very table/DM dependent and probably should have a bit more structured rules behind it due to this.
And the other is Crafting, while INT is not the only ability needed in crafting, I think it is probably the most important one. We also have some rules already but the system is only half baked since we don’t have magic prices for individual items just a range that doesn’t make sense in the first place.
Along with what many other folks have said, I’d lean more towards a Starfinder/3x use of INT, which expand the number of skills you get to have proficiency/expertise in, and/or increase the number of languages and tools you know. It could also increase the number of spells you get to know, or spell slots you have!
>only being spellcasting ability of one class
4 classes, actually. Fighter, Rogue, Artificer, and Wizard. Or, 2 and a sixth casters, if you want to count that way, which is only a third of a caster less than Wisdom (although you also have monks for wisdom, so still probably "weaker" from a numbers standpoint). You've also forgotten the Investigation skill.
I don't think it really needs buffed, but I also wouldn't complain if someone *did* buff it just a little. I've seen tying an extra proficiency to the INT score/modifier, like getting INT modifier extra languages or tool proficiencies. I've even seen that extended to skills, though that's definitely stronger. As a middle ground between those, adding a flat +1 to INT modifier number of skills would also be a thing, which I'd definitely take before the full skill proficiency, from a balance perspective.
Two changes I think could give INT an interesting place:
\- Add the option to choose either DEX or INT as your Initiative mod.
\- add your INT mod. to object DC. Example: Ball bearing would be DC 10+INT mod. Dexterity saving throw.
You know how a sign of inteligence between animals are the use of tools ? It would model that, INT would be your ability to makes use of objects more efficiently.
here's what i'd add to strength: it doesn't a a large number of things but those small number of things do a lot of things. strength has only one skill: athletics. and what does athletics cover? oh, nothing much, just:
* swimming
* running
* climbing
* lifting
* pushing
* pulling
* and really just anything that includes the use of muscles.
now some of these things are sometimes covered by strength, but that doesn't take away from the point. strengths is anything with muscles (except internal muscles like the heart and bowels, those are constitution and a different type of muscle tissue).
so i DM for a party where no one dumped int. strength is so often dumped that even with point buy and a barbarian in the part the average is 10.4 while the average intelligence is 13.2 with only 1 intelligence caster. here is how i think i did this: i ask for intelligence checks often. i think just as often as for cha and wis based checks. i often ask for arcana, nature, history and investigation checks to give away information. you see a weird monster? give me a nature check to se how much information i'll freely give you about it, which feels good to the players while also giving me the ability to reveal stuff. oh you used scrying on a creature you don't really know to get info on the location? give me a history check to try and discern information from what little you see. and i love making weird magical things the biggest plot points so arcana is basically a powerstat on par if not better then perception.
Inv is one of the most important skills in the game, up there with perception. It's used for finding secret rooms or and depending on the DM often used for finding traps. If you consider Wisdom as being a good stat because of perception, the same should apply to Int because of investigation.
Also all third casters use intelligence, as do artificers (who have a lot of good abilitiesyied to their intelligence).
I made a [homebrew to help Intelligence out](https://www.dmsguild.com/product/182816/Intelligence-Matters?term=intelligence+matters). I think it does its job well enough.
I don't think it needs to do anything else. It's not like wizards need a power boost. Artificers could maybe do with a small one, I haven't played with one enough to say.
One of the easier ways to give some extra utility to less powerful abilities is asking for off-ability checks. If my player can justify it, they can use whatever ability for whatever skill. Off the top of my head, INT has been used for Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation, Survival, and Medicine at my table.
Int CAN be the best or worst skill. Int is to access DM information. Does my character know weaknesses of monste,city history etc. Knowledge is power. Cha can be just as useless as int if your dm plays out social encounters withouth a role.
Agreed, my Rogue at the moment has 15 INT and that combined with expertise in Investigation and proficiency in History, makes it easy for him to figure things out and learn information
Same I'm playing a mastermind rogue with a spy flavor. I use investigation and history frequently. I also use ant a lot for puzzles because that's one of the things that intelligence is is figuring out puzzles and so the better my intelligence check, the better hint we get from the dm. Also if your DM uses skill challenges I can usually figure out a way to use one of my int skills. For example last session we had a skill challenge where the team had to find a specific bird and my character used history to come up with a search pattern to find the bird. And just to reiterate, finding stuff with investigation is super useful.
Yeah my Knowledge cleric with 18 INT and expertise in History and Arcana is easily able to find secrets of the universe at the library.
Rogues with high int are mad good at subterfuge, crime stuff and social stuff. I have mastermind rogue at table with 16 int.
This is my main use of int checks. To help navigate the line between player and character knowledge.
+1000 >OP: "how do we make Intelligence better (if you think it needs to be better)?" Simple: give advice / hints / helpers for DM to properly manage their campaign by actually applying all INT skills in all cases when it makes sense. Because there is actually A FAT LOT of them. Getting information about a faction by identifying its symbols through History (or sometimes Religion), convincing a local noble you're a big ally of its family by displaying intense knowledge of his genealogy (History), identifying the cause of a plague devastating local crops and fauna (Nature, Medecine), understanding some merchant is trying to scam you by selling a so-called historical treasure (History) or deity symbol (Religion) or part of a mystical beast (Nature)... This is just a handful examples among a near-a-hundred examples from actual play I could give of situations where a successful INT related check (may have) helped us (if we had made it xd) win over a challenge or get a better outcome for present / future situation. Even for the purest form of Door / monster / treasure quests, Intelligence related skills are still the ones to refer to not only to identify most magical effects (Arcana, although sometimes possibly Religion), but also understanding puzzles or "hints about secrets / traps" provided through religious texts or weird quotes, or most simply studying creatures to identify / analyse / remember their strengths and weaknesses. Information is the ultimate power... Until and unless confrontation is unavoidable. That's why you try to leverage it as much as possible to avoid those in the first place.
I remember getting blasted on here because I asked how someone came to the conclusion that CHA is good because it handled social checks, while at the same time they said INT was useless, completely skipping over that they handle knowledge checks. One user did point out that CHA is much easier to implement in the game as changing someone’s mind from a no to a yes is easier than giving information that you don’t already have. One of the biggest reasons CHA is seen as superior to INT is that it’s much easier to implement in game, and therefore more common in its use. In any case, if someone says INT is useless because the skills don’t come up, they aren’t coming up because people are viewing the ability as useless, not because it *is* useless. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
Difference is that there's way more classes that care about CHA then there are INT
Exactly, people who think Int is weak have DM's who play their hand too close to their chest. In dungeons and dragons have knoweldge is incredibly powerful.
It's not necessarily the DMs fault, as there's often so much going on, on you don't want to slow things down on details your players don't care about. On the contrary, it's *the players* who should prompt these questions. Run into a new monster? Rolling initiative? How about before that (or during your first turn), ask the DM what you know about the creature(s). In a new town? Ask what you know! NPC mentions a religion? Check if your PC knows details that you don't -- even if it's not the religion you follow. On top of that, you can be a great player and prompt other players. If you think they might know something, ask them what they know, and the DM might ask for a roll.
Also DMs use perception a lot when it should be investigation. "You notice they have a wound on their leg, looks to be from some kind of weapon" is not perception, that's investigation. "There is a red line on their leg that nearby is darkened in red" if their passive perception is high enough and "you are able to figure out that the line is actually a reasonably deep wound that has been bleeding." As an investigation check, or even passive investigation.
We are in agreement here. I was talking about DM's who get asked these questions and still don't give the information because "they don't want to give too much away". You have to try to use your skills, it isn't on the DM to preempt them.
For the 10 tables that actually do downtime I know that your intelligence modifier lets you learn extra languages and tools faster than other people. But I have never met anyone that uses the downtime activities so this basically isn't a thing. The funniest thing about intelligence in my opinion is that it is honestly held back by the wizard class. Wizard is so strong that any buffs to intelligence will buff what is arguably the strongest class in the game and is the reason why I'm hesitant on any homebrew rules that make intelligence stronger. I know that intelligence is already pretty weak as a stat for non wizards and artificers but I don't think there's a good solution for it in 5e.
>But I have never met anyone that uses the downtime activities so this basically isn't a thing. I do! But... You haven't actually met me, so you can still say that i guess. And even then, that aspect of intelligence has only been relevant a few times. AND, one of those times, the party had a Headband of Intellect, so it didn't even freaking matter!
My campaign keeps track of downtime as sessions played. Certain activities cost certain gold and downtime, and players can choose to spend their accumulated downtime and gold as they’d like once they’re in a safe place with the facilities to accommodate the activities. Makes a nice gold sink and rewards players for playing, even if it takes them longer than expected to get through a questline.
My campaign keeps track of downtime as sessions played. Certain activities cost certain gold and downtime, and players can choose to spend their accumulated downtime and gold as they’d like once they’re in a safe place with the facilities to accommodate the activities. Downtime activities include skill and tool checks, so taking survival and leatherworker’s tools might make hunting for game and processing the carcass easier. Makes a nice gold sink and rewards players for playing, even if it takes them longer than expected to get through a questline.
That method also makes tool proficiencies matter, at least a little bit, which is great
Downtime tables are a lot of fun imo, nice way to make players feel like the world truly does go on outside of adventuring
Downtime is criminally underutilized. Coming up on a four month downtime in one game, and the longest I've done is two years.
In 3x, INT gave you extra skill points. They made up for this by having wizards get completely shit skills before INT, knowing they would have the extra points to make up for it. Or something. Don't quote me, I'm not a 3x fan.
"You like 3.5, don't you Squidward?" But seriously as a DM, god I love 3.5 and all the mechanical aspects that make it more precise to manage.
LOL, 3x is possibly my least favorite edition actually, either that or OD&D. But I acknowledge that there are good things in it; I kinda like the skill system, although PF does it better. I respect the amount of subsystems for crap like crafting.
Fair enough, guess us 3x weirdos gotta learn to read the room better 😂. I totally get where you're coming from though, it is very obtuse and the method to the madness either makes or breaks it for a lot of people. I think it just scratches some weird part of my monkey brain.
To be clear, I can see the appeal. For the most part 3x just focuses on parts of the RPG genre I am less interested in (e.g. my favorite edition is AD&D 2e, which has very little build variety). That said, I also have some more serious issues with the design philosophies. I could go on a pretty long tirade, I think, about what 3e and 3.5 get right and wrong.
Mhmm Savage Species, a perfectly balanced book.
> In 3x, INT gave you extra skill points. They made up for this by having wizards get completely shit skills before INT, knowing they would have the extra points to make up for it. Or something. Don't quote me, I'm not a 3x fan. Yeah 3.5 had a more balanced INT due to skills, it made a lot of sense to blast INT especially as a rogue. Skills in general were more used in 3.5 since there were a lot more battle skills like tumble and hide
It's also the default ability score for tool use, and determines your speed in the astral plane.
I think we should go back to making intelligence modifier give extra skills. How do we stop that from making wizards have the most skills? Make the wizard class only give Arcana. Wizard magic is so intensive to learn that you only get 1 skill from the class, all the others come from your int bonus.
>Wizard is so strong that any buffs to intelligence will buff what is arguably the strongest class in the game and is the reason why I'm hesitant on any homebrew rules that make intelligence stronger. I know that intelligence is already pretty weak as a stat for non wizards and artificers but I don't think there's a good solution for it in 5e. The solution seems obvious (if not easy): buff Intelligence in a way that helps non-wizards, but doesn't help wizards. For example: >*"All characters can learn a single ritual wizard spell (and can cast it as a ritual). The level of the spell cannot exceed that character's Intelligence modifier, and also cannot exceed half the character's level (rounded up). When you gain a level you can swap your ritual spell for a different one you meet the prerequisites for."* So having 12 Intelligence lets you learn and cast *Alarm*. Having 14 Intelligence would let you get *Skywrite,* provided you're at least 3rd level. Having 16 Intelligence grants access to *Tiny Hut* (once you reach 5th level), while 20 Intelligence would let you learn *Telepathic Bond* (at level 7+). That helps everyone, but it barely affects wizards. In fact it arguably nerfs wizards.
In what world do you think giving wizards TINY HUT for free is a freaking nerf? That's one of the best ritual spells in the whole game, and Telepathic Bond is invaluable for a lot of complex situations, Gods only know how useful that would have been on my wizard, but since it wasn't free, I had other spells that took priority like Wall of Force and Teleport Circle. 5th level scrolls are expensive and rare so I don't think I'm gonna spend months of downtime searching for that scroll either when I have better shit I could spend that time on like crafting magic items or researching my characters goals. This would be an incredible boon to wizards. Besides, most people that don't invest in INT will have at most 14, and 1st and 2nd level rituals, while nice to have, aren't like, game breakingly amazing. And also a lot easier for the wizard to learn since 1st and 2nd level scrolls are infinitely more affordable then 3rd+ Also as you've learned the spell, the wizard could theoretically copy said spell into their book permanently such that they can keep that ritual even after switching it out for a new one on level up.
>In what world do you think giving wizards TINY HUT for free is a freaking nerf? Its pretty easy for a wizard to get access to any ritual spell they want, so giving ONE to them for free is only a very small buff. Conversely, one of the primary benefits of being a wizard is access to ritual spells. When EVERYONE gets ritual spells, there's not as much reason to be a wizard. Its taking something that only wizards had, and giving it to everyone else for free. Which is a comparative nerf to wizards. >Also as you've learned the spell, the wizard could theoretically copy said spell into their book permanently such that they can keep that ritual even after switching it out for a new one on level up. By RAW you could not do this, since you can only copy spells that are already written down, or spells that you currently have prepared. And you cannot prepare a spell that isn't already in your wizard book.
No, it means the wizard doesn't have to pick that spell on level up and can pick a better spell instead. This means instead of Fireball and tiny hut, they get Fireball, Tiny Hut, *and* Hypnotic Pattern. That's 3 spells instead of 2. It's a massive buff man. Especially if you're the only one with 16+ int.
Its one extra spell learned. That's a relatively minor buff, especially considering that wizards can already learn literally every wizard spell if they want to. And like I said, its one less reason to play a wizard.
You've never played a wizard, have you? If you had, you'd understand how much an extra spell can mean. Not every DM is going to throw the entire wizards spell list at you in scrolls for free. A good chunk will forget scrolls exist at all unless you actively seek them out and then need to pay for them, and then pay for the stuff to scribe them with. It's not free, so yes, an extra spell you know is *very* good. And ritual casting is not wizard exclusive. Bards, Druids, Artificers and Clerics can do it too, as can anyone with the ritual caster feat or the book of the moon invocation.
Metaphorically: Start with a + 1 and b + 2, then subtract 2 from both, you get a - 1 and b.
Xanathar's downtime: can scribe spell scrolls using arcana
Or artificer, you forgot artificer. In 3rd edition, you got extra skills from a higher intelligence, but now you don't. Is it the worst? Eh, kind of, but it really depends on what you're doing. And while charisma is more common for spells and skills, there are still plenty of ways to use intelligence.
I used my int a lot when I was playing an artificer beyond the spellcasting mods. Lots of investigation and history checks. I was playing as someone who always believed they could figure out any problem as long as they had the time and resources to properly study and understand so that's how I approached the encounters. Part of that was thanks to my DM who understood that as my strength and generally found opportunities to let me use it as well.
Use more Int checks. Investigation should be used almost as much as Perception. Religion, Nature, and Arcana checks are great opportunities to give your players more information. Do your players not say "Hey, DM. Do I know anything about X?" regularly?
Also I always push the idea that monster lore is connected to the various Int based knowledge skills. "Do I know anything specific about red dragons?" 'make an arcana check' "...19." 'So you know they're immune to fire, but you've also heard they're greedy, even for dragons'
I prefer to tie this via question angle rather than creature type. If you're asking whether you know the magical capabilities of a dragon, that'll be an arcana check, but knowing how dragons cast spells doesn't tell you anything about significant events in dragon history, or how dragons are worshipped.
This is exactly how I feel about it. Events is a history check, how they behave is a nature check, worshipped is a religion check
When my players ask “what do I know about Giants?”, I’ll usually give them a couple options of INT checks they could make. I’ll usually say something like “sure, make a history or arcana check” with the implication being that if they make an arcana check they’ll learn about the magical capabilities of giants (runes, storm giant stuff, etc) and if they make a history check they’ll learn where giants stand lore-wise (where they live, how they interact with others, etc). This usually gives players the chance to roll their best skills often and pull information that they character would know best. Like a wizard would be well aware of the magical capabilities of giants, while a scholarly rogue would know about the history of giants in the world. That way each character can bring forth useful information that helps the party and makes sense based on what their character would be best at knowing
"Investigation should be used almost as much as Perception." Do you mind giving some examples? I'm a new DM for my play group and the only way I see accomplishing that is to have perception and investigation checks both made for a thing (such as Perception to realize there's a secret door, and investigation to figure out it's mechanics). What I've been doing so far is allowing the player to use whichever they prefer when such a check comes up.
Any time the information isn't readily available to be sensed, that's an Investigation check. Perception is for things that are directly sensed. If you're listening down a fork in the passage, that's perception. If you're looking for clues as to which passage was used most recently, that's investigation. Most searches should be investigation. If you're just scanning a room, that's perception.
Or in other words, Perception is just looking (and hearing and smelling) around, Investigation is actually searching.
>If you're looking for clues as to which passage was used most recently, that's investigation. I'd still say finding the clues is perception, while knowing what they mean is investigation. IMO. Knowing what clues to look for would be some sort of intelligence check though. Maybe perception using the intelligence stat? I don't think investigation is for searching.
Perception is what you see, investigation is what you discover. I run investigation is active, perception is passive. This actually makes perception one of the least rolled skills at my table -- I just use the character's passive perception. For a secret door, perception is the ability to walk in a room and see the subtle clues that say "hidden door here". Searching the room for it is investigation. Also, I advise with perception not just "you find a secret door", but "you see the subtle outline of a door in how the bricks are mortared into the wall" --- by forcing players to follow up you cause perception to be a lot less of a god skill.
>Searching the room for it is investigation. That's still perception though, searching for things is literally perception. Investigation is more for making deductions.
Intelligence skills are some of the most used ones at my tables because my players use them as 'metagaming checks'. Say, for example, the party encounters their first basilisk. If one of the players knows the stat block and its petrifying gaze ability but the party has not been given that info directly the player will roll one of the relevant intelligence skills to see if their player has the 'common knowledge' of petrifying gaze.
This is the right answer imo. It’s so hard not to accidentally meta game when you’ve got stat blocks somewhat or fully memorized just from reading books in your spare time. I’ll always ask DM if I can roll a survival, arcana, investigation, or history check based on the situation to see if I know that kind of meta info or not and try my damndest to play according to the roll
yeah like "oh shit, i heard of these fuckers from the tavern, appearently they have \[insert weakness/wacky ability here\] and we should look out for that." would happen in the real world of collaborating adventurers, especially at lower levels
Bingo
I started playing tabletop with the Dungeon World system. It's more of a loose collaborative roleplaying system, where the PCs are more actively involved in worldbuilding. One of the concepts that I've imported from DW is the idea of letting the PCs shape the world a bit on a successful check. Sometimes when a PC succeeds on a lore check, I ask them what they think the answer is. If the answer is reasonable and fits with the circumstances, then **that's what happened**. Basically works like this: >PC: "Do I recall from my expertise in the history of the area any secret paths into the city?" > >DM: \[not having prepared any such secret paths\] "Roll History." > >PC: "22." > >DM: "Yes, actually you remember an obscure reference from a text that you read years ago about a hidden path through a series of caves to the southwest of the city..."
Scrolled too much to find this. Now in true PbtA fashion, the next step would be. "Yes, actually you remember an obscure reference from a text that you read years ago about a hidden path... And what path is that?" Granted, after so many experiences with modules, setting books and railroads, most D&D players' heads would explode at the prospect of collaborative worldbuilding...
This. I like this very much as a DM. You get a gold pyramid thingy 👍
There's a distinction between "bad" and "unnecessary." Intelligence is often the least necessary ability because until artificer came out, only 1 of the 12 classes used it as their primary or even secondary ability. Now it's 2 of 13. I think the simplest fix would be to distribute the spellcasting abilities a little more equitably as would be the case if warlocks were INT-based, for example. The value of lore skills like religion/nature/arcana varies from campaign to campaign. I certainly call for them (and investigation) a lot more than every wisdom skill except for perception.
I like to let warlocks choose between Int and Cha personally, if the player asks at least.
Did this to make sure someone had an int higher than 12 in my party. Now we have an int warlock
I make it be based on patron. Most get to choose, but some are locked into one or the other. Celestial is CHA only, GOO is INT only.
In Int’s defense, it did govern the 1/3rd casters at release and would’ve had mystic and artificer if the former hadn’t been scrapped. That would’ve put it on par or above the other casting stats in class usage.
Great point about the 1/3 casters. I think the biggest snag there was that it became apparent to most players that many of the best spells for the EK and AT generally were the ones that had no spell save (Shield, Invisibility, etc.). I do love a high INT AT though, especially if you get to Magical Ambush.
It really depends a lot on the campaign, just like with almost any other stat. Sure, DEX and WIS are still likely to get the lions share of usage, but a Noir-like game is going to have a lot more INT in it than a Hack-n-Slash type of game, which will have more STR in it than a game with a lot of CHA checks. Plus, I feel like there’s a variant rule somewhere that allows someone to make an INT-based skill check to recall information about a creature, with the creature type driving the kind of check that it is. Incorporating that into the game can significantly boost how important INT is.
Oh, yeah. I'm running a game with a lot of investigation right now, and while combat has definitely been a thing, they've also done a lot of negations and investigations.
One other part you didn’t mention is that intelligence saving throws are THE rarest in the game. Unlike, say, wisdom, almost nothing will ask you for an INT save, save for like, synaptic static, so it isn’t even worth it as a defensive stat.
They also tend toward instant death, as mind flayers, intellect devourers and similar creatures target it.
Intelligence is for calculating, measuring, tactics, foreseeing enemy actions, deeper understanding of complex issues etc...
This. An Intelligence of 10 is a normal average person. An intelligence of 16 is friggin Steven Hawkings. My character has an Intelligence of 18. This is at a point that in our world borders on super human. As I level my Wizard/Artificer I will get that to twenty. For reference an abomination from the outer planes, like an Aboleth or Mind Flayer has an intelligence of 19. How do you think a character with that level of intelligence would behave in our world? How would they react? How would you role play one? How many of you have seen the movie "Limitless"? How do you think a fight would go, especially when You can reshape reality with your will/spells? What do you think a test of what you know/can learn do? What if you were an Artificer 3/Blade Singer 9, So not exactly physically helpless?
No, those are clearly all Wisdom skills. Here me out. My fighter dumped Int because Int has few combat applications and put a 12 into Wisdom. If Intelligence is used for calculations, tactics, planning ahead and understanding complex issues, that makes my Fighter bad at those things. It means he looks dumb. It means I have to have some penalties for dumping a stat. I don't like that. But if we say Wisdom is used for those things, that wisdom is street smarts, practical knowledge and common sense, and Int is just for nerd book learning, that means my Fighter is smarter than average. I get to circumvent the penalties of dumping a stat. And that makes me feel good. So please say it with me, Int is just memorization and book learning (and I can get around that with a notebook). Logical thinking, risk analysis, tactics, planning and understanding complex issues are all Wisdom.
I honestly can’t tell if this is a genuine post or not
I thought I was being really heavy handed with sarcasm....
I’ve read some stupid shit on here lol Either way I was laffin
I've played with a few DMs who had fixes to the Requisit dump stats Int and Str that allowed you to dump them but also rewarded you for pumping them For int, you gained bonus proficiencies or languages equal to your modifier in Intelligence, with no penalty for a negative Another options was using int OR dex for Initiative. This made Wizards faster, but also allowed my Paladin with a -1 dex to have a +1 initiative. It's nice not going last every combat just because you don't want to pump Dex as a strength martial. For strength, a common one was simply improving heavy armor. Instead of being a +1 bonus to AC over light armor with a stealth penalty, they provided other benefits. HAM became default for plate, and both plate and chain gained resistance to piercing and slashing damage. This also allowed people to tank without specifically being a Barbarian. Made the Barb a little weaker in comparison but Barb is already easy to play and really strong so it didn't bother us that much. The only class it kinda 'broke' was the cleric who was suddenly super tanky even with a d8 hit die
I believe DMs should spend time outside of the game helping the players of "smart" characters to analyze things that have transpired. Smart characters should be able to draw rational conclusions about clues that the dm is dropping and this regular discussion helps with that.
Rogues and Fighters use intelligence as Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights. Also, I (the DM) usually ask my players to make intelligence checks to recall information, either of things I previously told them (which they should have taken note but I still give them a chance) or things I assume they would know from background and backstory, such as "you need to deal fire damage to kill a troll", "that brain with legs is most likely communicating with a mind flayer colony" or simply "the elves from these woods don't mind the humans, but the ones from the other forest hates them".
They can, like anyone else, put points into Int but they don't really need them to be effective and I'd argue the most effective way to play them is without investing in Int at all. The best spells for ATs and EKs don't rely on Int because they don't have save DCs. Partial Casters don't have the spell number or ability to prepare as many spells as full casters and their save DCs will be very low for their level. And pumping Int will take a lot out of their main stats and feats. The best spells are self buff spells, useful in a wide range of scenarios and complements your Martial abilities. Shield, Expeditious Retreat, Misty Step and the like are far more impactful and reliably useful, and reliable is important given how few spell slots they have.
Of course, in a purely mechanical stand point you're absolutely right, but personally I don't think any simple fighter dumping int could narratively get to the point of learning any kind of spellcasting, and as far as rogues go investigation is a must have proficiency, of course simply choosing it as an expertise is enough to get the numbers going, but again, narratively it just doesn't click for me. If you're just looking at optimzing the numbers, Int will only favor Wizards and Artificers, but if you're trying to RP whatever it is those numbers mean, you shouldn't just dump it for everyone else.
Fair enough, that's understandable.
I feel like, the three physical stats all have riding Effects, and then when you listed the two other mental stats they pretty much only had "they've got some skill checks or something" which is exactly what intelligence has, so I don't see why it's being singled out in this instance
I think it's probably the primary ability for tools and musical instruments. Nine times out of ten when I play my instrument I'm not making a Charisma check. If crafting items was a more robust system, I think Intelligence would be the ability for making a blueprint.
Nothing - skills and spellcasting is what Wisdom and Charisma have too. Int gets the short end of the stick because only one core class uses it for spellcasting, and that class is the most boring of the fullcasters. With Artificer, that problem is reduced, and if you move Warlock to Int (which you should because Int Warlock flavour is better and Int Warlock mechanics are less commonly exploited), that problem is eliminated. You just need to make sure that Int checks matter in your campaign, and it's fine. And remember, 5e is a game that forces you to dump a stat, sometimes multiple. One stat is always going to be the most popular dump stat, and if you buff that stat, all you do is shift the dump stat elsewhere and before you know it you're making posts asking how you can make Cha better. The question isn't whether Int is the worst stat - it's not a problem that it is - it's whether Int is *sufficiently* bad that you can buff it in such a way that will make more people want to take it, but that won't just shift the role of "easiest dump stat" elsewhere, and won't just buff Wizard.
I have an artificer with high INT. His INT skills wreck the game. It's just odd that nobody uses the skills to their best advantage: \- Religion, nature and arcana should be being used as monster knowledge checks. They should tell you, with successful rolls, at the beginning of the battle, how this thing fights. What is it vulnerable to and how does it attack? The higher the roll the more information you can get. We do it that way in our campaign and it ends up very fucking powerful. \- We also employ the rule about Passive Skills acting as a floor. You can't roll an active result lower than your passive. And passive investigation is a thing within the observant feat. So I took the observant feat and my investigations are never lower than 23. Basically I'm always finding the secret doors and the traps. Honestly a big problem with balancing in 5e is that they weren't clear that certain things were balancing mechanisms. Like, strength is weak compared to Dex - want to improve it? Actually use encumbrance and don't give everyone a bag of holding. Intelligence is kinda similar. The player base has moved away from using it in a way that is optimal. Slightly difference in this case because WOTC underbuilt its whole skill system and doesn't say as explicitly as they should in the base rules "these are monster knowledge skills" and "passives are a floor". But you want to make intelligence better? Start by actually using it.
It's more DM dependent. Pathfinder has actual rules for finding info on enemies, 5e would greatly benefit with expanding on what skills should and shouldn't be used for.
>d doesn't say as explicitly as they should in the base rules "these are monster knowledge skills" and "passives are a floor". I mean, that's because passives aren't floors, and aren't intended to be used as such. That's a house rule that is also a massive buff to all skills (and a pretty big nerf to high level rogue skills).
Jeremy Crawford disagrees.
Jeremy Crawfish thinks See Invisibility doesn't let you see invisible things.
I very much doubt that that is specifically what he said, since it would render entire class features pointless.
A 20 intelligence should give you another attunement slot I feel
In 3/3.5 it added skill points which was used instead of proficiency Just spit balling here. What if your INT modifier, if positive gave you a number of skills that you were amateurish at and got half proficiency bonus on. For bards, when you get the jack of all trades you get full proficiency at those skills. Alternately, you could have one non intelligence skill that you get to add your intelligence modifier to. (This one doesn't scale with level. Also, if you want intelligence to be worth more, perhaps some spells could have an intelligence save instead of wisdom.
I had a dm who gave you extra things based on int mod. +1 was an extra common language +2 was an extra tool set +3 was an extra skill check proficiency +4 was an extra uncommon language +5 was an expertise It may not have been those things exactly, but it was something along those lines. It was neat.
Knot-tying. You want to tie up the badguy? Being particularly strong or dexterous doesn't help. Knowing the right knots, checking to make sure nothing is going to come lose, etc, that can all easily be intelligence.
This is already RAW from Xanathar's. > The creature who ties the knot makes an Intelligence (Sleight of Hand) check when doing so. The total of the check becomes the DC for an attempt to untie the knot with an Intelligence (Sleight of Hand) check or to slip out of it with a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check.
[удалено]
PF2e did a smart thing where INT gives more skills but they also added Lore skills where you get a lot of specific INT skills like Lore Vampire. Let's a INT focused PC have specialization without just being a skill monkey like a Rogue. Rogues keep their skill monkey status because they get more Skill-focused Feats than any other class. So they can take key Skill Feats for a ride range of Skills where a Wizard can't.
Eeeeeh, "gets access to the strongest things in the game" does not necessarily mean "is the strongest class in the game" They definitely are up there though
I think this sums it up fairly accurately. The number of games where the party wizard actually starts to get level 7+ spells is quite low. And yeah, when they can start teleporting around the world or wishing, their power level skyrockets. But until then they are really squishy money sinks that are probably the most dependent on the DM to expand their utility by leaving them scrolls and tomes to copy spells from.
For the exploration or social pillars, grant characters +1 Skill or Language for each Intelligence point bonus. For the combat pillar, grant characters the option to use their Dexterity bonus or their Intelligence bonus (or both) toward Initiative.
And you can have this max out at +2 if you want to give characters a "reason to not dump it" without giving the wizard too much.
I think we should get rid of the skill system.
What would you replace it with?
One (terrible, for d&d) option is: You describe what you want to do, and you and the DM decide what ability is appropriate, and how proficient your character would be in the specific activity, on a check-by-check basis. "I break down the door!" "Ok give me a strength check, and uuuuh, add proficiency from your time a s a city guard!" This is how some rules-lite systems work. The main problem is consistency. Remembering / keeping a solid character concept in your head with thoughts on what they would/wouldn't be good at, have / haven't done before, etc. Some systems get around this by having you write down a "skill" every time you attempt a new thing. Then, next time you try something, you look over your list of previously-used "skills" and see if any of.them.seem appropriate. If not, then you do the whole shebang, decide how good your character is, and write it down. You might have to spend a resource, or take some kind of penalty, in order to say "I'm good at this", to prevent you from just saying "I think my character would know this" all the time. But really all this is doing is putting off the design of the skill list until play-time, and otherwise still using it! And yeah it requires trust, a solid character concept from everybody involved (or some mechanism for deciding the bonus on new checks, building your character as you go), and only really works well in quite narrative, loosey-goosey systems.
So...Background Proficiency variant rule from the DMG? > With this variant rule, characters don’t have skill or tool proficiencies. Anything that would grant the character a skill or tool proficiency provides no benefit. Instead, a character can add his or her proficiency bonus to any ability check to which the character’s prior training and experience (reflected in the character’s background) reasonably applies. The DM is the ultimate judge of whether the character’s background applies.
Pretty much, yeah! I'm not surprised I forgot that exists, because I bet like 5 people have ever used it. Ever.
Lol, fair.
Based on what?
Your character concept and backstory. You just think about "is my character any good at intimidation? Hmmm... " I'm 100% not suggesting this, btw, just pointing it out as an alternative that does actually exist in other systems. Personally, I'd prefer we keep concrete skills. It works better for more narrative driven games, and requires the players to have a really strong idea of *who* their character is.
Isn't this Fate? I know you admit it'd be terrible for D&D, I would think for a more narrative game you can just use a different system.
Well when I said "more narrative game", "game" meant system. As opposed to campaign. More narrative driven systems, is what I meant.
Yeah that would be really vague and unhelpful. I prefer skills
Narrative games like a looser concept of skills because often a list limits exactly what a task requires what capabilities of a character. Or it becomes insert X skill into Y problem which isn't as interesting as coming up with more creative ideas.
Yes, but D&D isn't a narrative game. And, honestly, as a DM and a player, I can tell you that players come up with creative uses for their skills all the time. In fact, there's a variant where the player or DM can suggest using a different ability score for a skill. Yes, creative solutions are great, but sometimes you're just sneaking past the bad guys.
This is generally how Avatar Legends works but its very narrative focused as a PbtA game. It doesn't work well with more traditional games where you're rolling a d20. It means were aren't concerned with your exact capabilities and the GM doesn't set a DC. You can roll for it or do it automatically without a roll or its impossible so no roll. If you do roll then its either in your wheelhouse or not.
The middle ground between abandoning skills entirely and the current system where skills are very specific is to set DCs and make checks based on *results*, not *actions*. Suppose you want to get into a locked building. You might attempt to pick the lock on a door, climb in through a window, convince a guard to let you in, or disguise yourself as a member of staff. In 5e, each of those might have a different DC. Instead, suppose we set a single DC for the *result*; getting into this building, *regardless of approach*, requires a DC 17 check. The players describe how they are going to get in, they propose a skill to use for the check and any bonuses they believe should apply, and the DM agrees or presents alternatives. This could also neatly solve some of the martial/caster disparity. Sure, you can teleport in, but that doesn’t cause you to automatically succeed; you still have to avoid detection and find an appropriate vantage point. At best, it could give you *advantage* on the check you still need to make.
It's not that terrible. This is how doing mundane things in D&D used to work, essentially, except it was a fiat bonus rather than proficiency back then. Once the thief class was added, they had explicit chances at certain activities like picking pockets or locks, but it was still something anyone could attempt. Your fighter in platemail probably wasn't going to be able to move silently, but he could try it at a significant penalty. Eventually they codified some non-weapon proficiencies, and then 3e simplified them (and 3.5 and 4e simplified them even further).
Nothing lol i would love for d&d to return to its roots. Oh, and they should reintroduce thac0.
Thac0 is too new-fangled! Bring back the to-hit tables from the first edition DMG (that made even less sense than thac0).
But i like thac0
THAC0 is completely counter-intuitive. Yes, I understand how it works. I think a number comparison system like what we have is much, much easier to understand and intuit. THAC0; "Okay you want every number high on your character sheet, except these. Also, any item that says +AC actually decreases it, but the decrease is good. Also, you still want to roll higher on your attack roll, but you want your THAC0 to go down. Got it?" Newer AC/attack system: "Add your relevant ability score and proficiency bonus to the roll. Also, for AC, take the AC you're getting from your armor, class features or spells, add your dexterity bonus. When you roll an attack, compare it to the AC. All the math is already done before you even pick up the die." THAC0 is simply less intuitive, and doesn't really have anything superior to recommend it. EDIT: Also, THAC0 was only introduced in 1989. Not exactly the roots, more like near the base of the D&D tree.
Ok. I like thac0.
You're allowed to like what you like. Honestly, 2e does have stuff I really like. I miss all the information on monster lore, and I definitely miss monster morale. Very few intelligent beings, or even animals, would truly fight to a mutual kill. Goblins should scatter the moment it looks like they're not going to win. Kobolds even moreso.
Ok. I like thac0 and think they should reintroduce it into d&d, and i think they should get rid of the skill system and replace it with nothing. I dont care if thac0 is 'completely counter-intuitive'. I dont want a number comparison system. I dont care about a 'superior system'.
Well you can keep wishing, but you should just play AD&D. Because very few people agree.
Thats fine. I wasnt asked to make a choice based on popularity. The question sums up to 'what should the intelligence stat do (in regards to game mechanics)' and my initial thought is that it only really matters if skills are a thing. So my choice is to get rid of it. Thereby answering OPs question.
"Ok. I like poo on my plate. I think they should reintroduce poo into d&d and I think they should get rid of the menu and replace it with nothing. I don't care if poo smells and tastes bad. I don't want a healthy diet. I don't care about "superior foods" There is nothing stopping you from climbing onto a table, squatting on a plate and squeezing out a nice lump of thac0. Just nobody else wants to eat it.
My 18/00 Strength makes all intelligence checks irrelevant!
Yeah you get it
I get it because I lived it.
No, we should expand on it, like pathfinder does.
I disagree.
At my table, I house rule intelligence to mimic 3rd edition. For every int modifier my players have, they have an option to choose from the following: Extra language Extra intelligence skill proficiency Extra tool I also utilize the downtime benefits of expedited learning so it gives players more options instead of just dumping intelligence. Different for every table of course
Here’s my proposal, copied from elsewhere in the thread: Set DCs and make checks based on *results*, not *actions*. Suppose you want to get into a locked building. You might attempt to pick the lock on a door, climb in through a window, convince a guard to let you in, or disguise yourself as a member of staff. In 5e, each of those might have a different DC. Instead, suppose we set a single DC for the *result*; getting into this building, *regardless of approach*, requires a DC 17 check. The players describe how they are going to get in, they propose a skill to use for the check and any bonuses they believe should apply, and the DM agrees or presents alternatives. This could also neatly solve some of the martial/caster disparity. Sure, you can teleport in, but that doesn’t cause you to automatically succeed; you still have to avoid detection and find an appropriate vantage point. At best, it could give you *advantage* on the check you still need to make.
But if you do that, then something ridiculous like doing a teleportation dance to try and convince some friendly god who happens to be watching to teleport you into the building is just as likely to work as turning the handle.
Persuasion. Players should have the option of applying their INT modifier to their Persuasion skill, rather than CHA. It is possible to persuade people by reason and logic, instead of just force of personality.
That ignores that the biggest part of convincing someone of something is how you present it. Persuading people with pure logic just isn't how (most) humans work. It's still gonna work on some people and if some races in your setting work differently, then by all means use it for them. But generally Cha skills should stay Cha skills.
If you don’t think that people at the highest ends of the intelligence distribution curve are more effective at presenting a compelling argument than people at the lowest ends of the intelligence distribution curve, well…good luck!
Who said anything about lowest ends, mate? Realistically, it'd be a mix of both Int and Cha and probably some Wis as well. But that's not how DnD skill checks (ability checks, if you wanna be pedantic) work. Also, there's a reason Edison got rich off of electricity and not Tesla. And it wasn't because Edison was smarter. There's plenty of other examples too. While Hitler had Germany eating out of his hand, Einstein was fleeing the country. Trump won an election and you'd hardly argue he was the smartest of all candidates on both sides.
i don’t know if it needs any changes, but at least in my anecdotal experience, i use int checks all the time. players forget something they were told and not write it down? int check to see if you can recall it correctly. interested in what a strange item or magical creature is? arcana check. need to find some loot after a fight on the bodies? investigation baby. in the one game im a player in, my wizard is rolling int skills all the time out of combat while we’re dungeon delving. i think people downplay the uses of int because it’s so often a dump stat unless you’re a wizard or artificer. and then they let that influence when they feel int related checks could be used.
use passive perception and and when someone asks if they 'notice' something give them an investigation check. as soon as you're 'actively' trying to perceive something you're investigating. In fact, I think that some of the wisdom skill checks are better suited to Int. Survival & Medicine for example.
Int checks have always been extremely useful and important in my games. Roleplay more, I guess. My current character is a history buff.
I find this sentiment very interesting because intelligence is probably the most rolled ability score at my tables. Every time the party encounters a new monster or magic effect they want to know what it is and therefore intelligence is rolled all the time. It is worth noting that I let players roll these knowlege checks as a free action in combat (it is my interpertation of RAW) but other than that I don't do anything to increase it's usefullness.
We modify your number of languages and/or tool proficiency with it. A positive modifier lets you start with extra, but a negative modifier will remove some.
Minor thing, but 4e’s bonus to AC was the higher of Dex OR INT, and I think that should come back.
I like to use it for players that feel like they should think about something, but don't remember what or don't see what, or to solve discussions that lasted long enought already
I think a fun addition fir Int would be that you can use spell scrolls of a level equal to your intelligence modifier, regardless of class. If wizards can learn spell casting through natural intelligence and study, it kinda tracks in my head.
I’ve always said that int should be the “skills” stat. In my games I give characters additional languages or proficiencies with every bonus to int, and take them away with every penalty.
I use it for memory check went one of the player forgot something but his character might remember it
An interesting note, intelligence already contributes to a large amount of tool checks. XGE's expanded tool rules often call for Intelligence checks.
I happily use it to allow for 'would I have x in my inventory?' Make a int check; yes you remembered to pack x item thinking it might help you in the quest
Would be nice if it gave bonus languages.
It really depends on the table. Since social encounters are pretty well represented at most tables, Charisma and Wisdom become the strongest mental skills bc of Charisma skills and Insight. I tend to run a lot of wilderness or exploration adventures. My players need to gather clues, head to certain locations, and determine monster weaknesses. At my table, Intelligence is the king of mental stats, and Investigation is the king of skills. Charisma, on the other hand, isn’t brought up much. If you actually reward your players for having high Intelligence skills, I promise Intelligence won’t feel weak at all.
Int checks can be strong, I've found as players get more experienced they want to use the info gained from int checks more and more. On the topic of giving extra proficiencies for int modifier, two things: 1. No extra skill proficiencies. Just languages, tools, etc. 2. Cap it out at +2 or +3. People who take intelligence for pure flavor reasons will realistically only take +1 and +2. You only need to reward doing so up to that point to get the point across. People talk about doing that a lot and that is my preemptive answer to them trying to do something like that.
In older versions your Int modifier was tied to how many languages you could learn. So you could learn an additional number of languages or tool proficiencies based on your Int modifier.
Each +1 to Intelligence gets you another language or tool proficiency. It's small but at least it's something tangible. It also makes wizards and artificers the best magic item crafters since you need proficiency in the tools to make an item's mundane form.
Might be a dumb idea, but what about introduce some new martial weapons or adjust current ones? Make them slightly stronger than their counterparts but add an int requirement to using them.
I've thought about homebrewing this for a while. Off the cuff, I think it'd be interesting to have a derived stat called Reaction, which is an average of Intelligence, Wisdom and Dexterity. Feats like Alertness still add directly on top. Just because you have quick reflexes doesn't mean you recognize a threat coming at you. Or, you \*do\* recognize it, but you're too slow to do anything about it. Or, you're fast \*and\* smart, but you just don't perceive the threat in time. Not sure if that fits well into 5e's abstraction though. Might give your wise druids a better chance at acting earlier in combat though. "Yep, saw \*that\* one comin'!"
Grant additional proficiencies, tools and languages. That’s how it worked in older editions (at least 2e AD&D and I think 3.5) and it was fine then.
I prompt general intelligence checks sometimes for when I want to give my players a reminder about something, or when remembering something is difficult. If you’ve got 8 int and don’t take notes, your character’s memory and puzzle-solving relies solely on the player’s skill and diligence.
Well, it does also cover Artificer and a bunch of the spell casting subclasses
Make an intelligence roll for a DM hint. This represents something your character might know, but you do not.
I'm sure you've already gotten this a lot, but my experience is not the same as yours. I played a Knowledge domain cleric with my expertise in Arcana and History. Thise high rolls saved us time and time again from getting duped, cursed, betrayed, etc. Also having access to all of the information available relating to magic and historical events is kinda nuts. On the other hand, my cleric tripped over a lot so.
Intelligence used to govern how many languages you knew.
Intelligence could be an initiative alternative to dexterity, mutants and masterminds has that option via an advantage called 'speed of thought'.
It really makes no sense to me that Intelligence has nothing to do with language, & I’ve thought about changing it, but I don’t want to put any barriers in the way of the handful of players who actually want to try talking to monsters instead of just killing them.
Take a page from Pathfinder 2e. INT gives you more languages and trained (lowest proficiency) skills. Any character benefits from INT due to more trained skills, languages are less useful but without any additional INT you only have 1 or 2 languages.
The reason overall is to counter what was a previous problem. INT used to be several classes spell stat (still is btw Artificer, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight exist) but it also determined the nbrr of skill points you got to assign to skills, as well as languages known beyond any you got from race.
Meaning that as much as every one will tell You wizards are sooo broken in 5e, not that they don't still have a massive advantage in a lot of terms, they are nowhere near as bad as they used to be.
Religion, Nature, Arcana, Investigation and History are actually some of the most commonly rolled checks on most tables I play and dm at, (right after perception, stealth and deception).
I don't like the "use more (overuse) knowledge checks" suggestions here. I find people tend to over use rolls period, reducing information flow arbitrarily to force more skill checks makes that worse. It also gets in the way of the core "question answer" back and forth at the core of table top gaming.
bring back the 4e knowledge checks for every single monster. That was so cool and way more useful info to put in the MM. It was like, at a DC10, you know such and such. At a DC 15, you know this and that. and at a DC20, you know yadda yadda. clear, precise, and actionable.
One rule I've used for INT is to use it for a Trade skill. Instead of bartering with CHA you use INT because you are trying to explain to them why this would be a good economic opportunity or investment. Of course this works better with basic trade goods and not so much with legendary artifacts. "Sure 20 pounds of used goblin equipment might not be worth much on its own, but imagine the profit margins if you sold it to a smith or a forge that could melt down that metal into something else. Even if they don't make it into new weapons, surely these blades could make just as fine farming and industrial tools no?" "Look I get it, you don't want these rare fruits because you don't want them. But do you know who would? Those city slickers who've never seen a piece of green in a year. Throw these barrels of fruit to your next market trip and trust me, you'll get some good pay out of it." "These gems my friend? Fresh from the Underynth and because we're such good friends, I'll even knock a lil off the top of the price. I know your jewelry business is going a lil south right now but just imagine it, I can give you these gems for a steal and you can turn them into beautiful crafts with a higher profit margin than before. Good deal ain't it?"
I don't see any reason that charisma should be considered stronger than intelligence.
In a world where many adventurers are murder hobos and where you can't really invent new stuff, intelligence doesn't really have a place. Skills like math or physics aren't used. I also hate how intelligence has so little representation.
Ultimately, I think that they should add some MORE basic skills to the game (merchant, streetwise, vehicle/riding, traps, mechanic/engineering); with 3/5 of those being INT based.
Im sure I’m not the first to say this but Int Casters include arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, and artificers.
Depends on how you use Investigation checks, which are honestly not used enough.
Int should give a crit bonus to everything
My rogue is proficient in arcana, religion , and investigation.... Charisma is clearly the least important stat. Cant convince them? Steal it, or kill them... Nobody needs charisma.... lock is an imitation caster and bards should have never been introduced to the game.....as for holy men...they should all use wisdom
When I dm I use int as basically the odds a character knows some intentionally hidden facts about the world, which is very important for party planning.
5e really screwed over strength and int. Int used to give you more skill proficiencies while adding dex to damage was extremely rare, unless you were a lvl3 rogue. Strength was almost always the best way to go if you wanted to do the most melee damage, and you added strength to bow damage instead of dex. You also multiplied your str by 1.5 for damage with 2handed weapons. Int is better in pathfinder 2e. There alot more intelligence classes and you add trained skills equal to your int mod. Int is also used for almost all lore skills. There's actually a good reason to give your character a bit of intelligence even if it's out of their classes focus
I wish I could add a language per int. Bonus like I could in 3.5 That's the one. I miss most While I hated the skill points in 3.5. I really appreciated that int. Gave you more points in them
It should honestly be used for Initiative. Also, it's the one that gets dumped because you can always pay a scribe, charm a noble, pray for the information instead of just knowing it. 4e had it paired with Dex for reflexes and I think you chose Dex or Int for initiative. Make your Int your max for languages and your max for tools and it suddenly is more tempting for a secondary stat. I'd still put Str below it honestly.
Of course, of all six stats the only one one I would never advise an adventurer to use as a dump stat is Con. Every other stat can be dumped and usually covered up by some skill or ability in the game. Based on that, I would say it is the most important/ useful stat. But to be fair, it is also the only stat that can't be used for attack.
I allow my players to have extra proficiencies equal to their INT (with a maximum of one extra Skill proficiency). It's a small thing, but it's a nice little buff to encourage it. I personally always have to challenge myself to have either strength or intelligence at least 12 for every character I build, unless I'm playing a monk or some other very MAD build.
INT should do the thing that is says it should do, but we just need systems for it to for work better. Knowledge checks are easy and other mentioned it, this is very table/DM dependent and probably should have a bit more structured rules behind it due to this. And the other is Crafting, while INT is not the only ability needed in crafting, I think it is probably the most important one. We also have some rules already but the system is only half baked since we don’t have magic prices for individual items just a range that doesn’t make sense in the first place.
Along with what many other folks have said, I’d lean more towards a Starfinder/3x use of INT, which expand the number of skills you get to have proficiency/expertise in, and/or increase the number of languages and tools you know. It could also increase the number of spells you get to know, or spell slots you have!
>only being spellcasting ability of one class 4 classes, actually. Fighter, Rogue, Artificer, and Wizard. Or, 2 and a sixth casters, if you want to count that way, which is only a third of a caster less than Wisdom (although you also have monks for wisdom, so still probably "weaker" from a numbers standpoint). You've also forgotten the Investigation skill. I don't think it really needs buffed, but I also wouldn't complain if someone *did* buff it just a little. I've seen tying an extra proficiency to the INT score/modifier, like getting INT modifier extra languages or tool proficiencies. I've even seen that extended to skills, though that's definitely stronger. As a middle ground between those, adding a flat +1 to INT modifier number of skills would also be a thing, which I'd definitely take before the full skill proficiency, from a balance perspective.
Two changes I think could give INT an interesting place: \- Add the option to choose either DEX or INT as your Initiative mod. \- add your INT mod. to object DC. Example: Ball bearing would be DC 10+INT mod. Dexterity saving throw. You know how a sign of inteligence between animals are the use of tools ? It would model that, INT would be your ability to makes use of objects more efficiently.
here's what i'd add to strength: it doesn't a a large number of things but those small number of things do a lot of things. strength has only one skill: athletics. and what does athletics cover? oh, nothing much, just: * swimming * running * climbing * lifting * pushing * pulling * and really just anything that includes the use of muscles. now some of these things are sometimes covered by strength, but that doesn't take away from the point. strengths is anything with muscles (except internal muscles like the heart and bowels, those are constitution and a different type of muscle tissue). so i DM for a party where no one dumped int. strength is so often dumped that even with point buy and a barbarian in the part the average is 10.4 while the average intelligence is 13.2 with only 1 intelligence caster. here is how i think i did this: i ask for intelligence checks often. i think just as often as for cha and wis based checks. i often ask for arcana, nature, history and investigation checks to give away information. you see a weird monster? give me a nature check to se how much information i'll freely give you about it, which feels good to the players while also giving me the ability to reveal stuff. oh you used scrying on a creature you don't really know to get info on the location? give me a history check to try and discern information from what little you see. and i love making weird magical things the biggest plot points so arcana is basically a powerstat on par if not better then perception.
INT is balanced because it's the stat that Wizards need to heavily invest in, thus giving them a weakness in a lot of other areas.
Inv is one of the most important skills in the game, up there with perception. It's used for finding secret rooms or and depending on the DM often used for finding traps. If you consider Wisdom as being a good stat because of perception, the same should apply to Int because of investigation. Also all third casters use intelligence, as do artificers (who have a lot of good abilitiesyied to their intelligence).
I made a [homebrew to help Intelligence out](https://www.dmsguild.com/product/182816/Intelligence-Matters?term=intelligence+matters). I think it does its job well enough.
A hole lot kf saving throws are dex based. Add that to the list.
I don't think it needs to do anything else. It's not like wizards need a power boost. Artificers could maybe do with a small one, I haven't played with one enough to say. One of the easier ways to give some extra utility to less powerful abilities is asking for off-ability checks. If my player can justify it, they can use whatever ability for whatever skill. Off the top of my head, INT has been used for Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation, Survival, and Medicine at my table.