[3.5] What happens when a PC's INT drops below 3?

[OMG PONIES]

This conversation was sparked by a question in the Simple RAW thread:

Q 345

What happens if a Drunken Master uses his "drink like a demon" feature to lower his Int below 3? Can he lower it to 0?

We should begin by considering the rules text of the Drink Like a Demon ability:

A drunken master’s body handles alcohol differently from other people’s. He can drink a large tankard of ale, a bottle of wine, or a corresponding amount of stronger alcohol as a move action. Every bottle or tankard of alcohol he consumes during combat reduces his Wisdom and Intelligence by 2 points each, but increases his Strength or Constitution (character’s choice) by 2 points. A drunken master may benefit from a number of drinks equal to his class level. The duration of both the penalty and the bonus is a number of rounds equal to the character’s drunken master level + 3.

As we see, there is no indication of a minimum INT score or what happens when one's INT drops below three. From the Simple RAW Q&A thread, four competing answers emerged:

1. At 2 or 3 INT, you become very stupid. At 1 INT, you lose the ability to comprehend language. At the minimum INT of 0, you become unconscious.
2. You become an NPC if your INT drops below 3.
3. The rules are not explicit what happens when a PC's INT goes below 3, though they seem to indicate that a PC with an INT below 3 has it raised to a minimum of 3. Due to the uncertainty, the question is left to DM discretion.
4. There is no penalty for reaching INT 1 aside from a -5 penalty to INT-related skill checks.

RAW citations and explanations in favor of each position are spoilered below:

Spoiler: Position #1

Show

A 345

There's nothing preventing a Drunken Master from decreasing their INT to 0, but they physically can't go to negative INT.

A character with Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma 0 is unconscious.

A 345 - Continuation

No, a Drunken Master who (ab)uses Drink Like a Demon does not become an NPC any more than a character temporarily reduced to sub-3 INT by Touch of Idiocy does. Yes, they behave like a very stupid drunk until they become unconscious or recover as per Drink Like a Demon. At 1 INT the character loses the ability to comprehend language, so playing the drunken PC becomes more challenging.

345- additional
I was unaware that a creature with 1 INT no longer understands language. Where can I find that rule?

A 345 additional

One place is in the Feeblemind spell description:

If the target creature fails a Will saving throw, its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently.

Spoiler: Position #2

Show

Q 345 - Continuation

I was mostly wondering about the clause that says Int<3 means animal intelligence. Does a Drunken Master with 1 or 2 Int become an NPC?

An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.

Creatures who have an Intelligence score of 2 or lower, who have no way to communicate, or who are so different from other PCs that they disrupt the campaign should not be used...The separate table for Intelligence ensures that no PC ends up with an Intelligence score lower than 3. This is important, because creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters. Creatures with any ability score lower than 1 are also not playable.

So, do they stop being "humanlike" (whatever that means) if the score drops below 3?

Spoiler: Position #3

Show

A 345 contention: As written, it is unclear if the loss of language comprehension is a function of the character's INT dropping to 1, a function of the character's CHA dropping to 1, or a separate specific effect of the feeblemind spell. Thus, that may not be a general rule to follow whenever the character's INT drops to 1. It seems like one possible distinction between "animal" and "humanlike" INT, but I suppose some could try to make a case that trained animals might somehow comprehend language. Regardless, the NPC idea comes from the following rules text:

Creatures who have an Intelligence score of 2 or lower, who have no way to communicate, or who are so different from other PCs that they disrupt the campaign should not be used.

However, that is followed later in the same section by the below:

For ability scores lower than 10, the procedure is different. First, determine the character’s ability scores, and compare that number to the monster’s average ability score, using either the table below that applies to Intelligence or the table that applies to the other five ability scores.

The separate table for Intelligence ensures that no PC ends up with an Intelligence score lower than 3. This is important, because creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters. Creatures with any ability score lower than 1 are also not playable.

Based on the above quote's reference to the table, a PC who has their INT dropped below 3 may automatically have it rise back to a minimum of 3. Since the RAW do not answer the original question directly, ask your DM to be sure.

Spoiler: Position #4

Show

A345 Contention What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed, or indeed contended, without evidence. The fact that Feeblemind both reduces ability scores and removes linguistic abilities does not mean that the INT loss is the cause of the loss of comprehension any more than the CHA loss is. The correct, RAW answer is that there is no penalty associated with an INT of 1 except the taking of -5 to intelligence-based checks as one might expect.

So which is it?

[heavyfuel]

I think it's either #2 or #3.

Against #1, there's no evidence that having 1 Int makes you unable to understand language anywhere besides the Feeblemind spell. Similarly to how having Int and Cha reduced to 1 through other means doesn't make a Cleric or Druid unable to cast spells, it pretty clearly means it's an effect of Feeblemind, and not of having Int or Cha reduced to 1.

As for #4, there clearly is a penalty, even if it's one left to DM adjudication. The penalty is explicit in that you no longer have humanlike intelligence, which is then left to each individual DM to determine what that means.

On a sidenote, as evidence for #2, could you add the your quotes of the SRD used in #3? They pretty much mean that either #3 happens, or that you no longer qualify for PC-ship.

[Thurbane]

I'd be inclined to lean towards #1, at least in my games.

[Seclora]

#3, whenever the rules are not clear, DM adjudication is the default.


Me personally, I'd have you act as confused at INT 2, as you're no longer terribly able to understand what's going on, but not actually straight up Feebleminded. At IT 1, you behave as Feebleminded.
Oh, and you have a 50% chance of not remembering anything that occurs in these states. Welcome to drinking too much.


Oh, and my Spanish Inquisition sense can't help but notice that you've stated 'three competing answers', and then proceeded to list 1-4 answers.

[Shoat]

If we were talking about character chreation, #3 would be the clear answer. We don't let players start unless they have enough int to be players.

But if anything in the game were to reduce a character to below 3 int (at 1 or 2 int specifically, since 0 int is already a comatose state) I'd treat it as "the character is disabled and not playable until fixed" - for the simple reason that you can't roleplay it.
Sure it's easy to describe the behavior of low-intelligence creatures (DMs do it all the time when controlling creatures), but a player has to do much more than control a chesspiece with stats on a battlemap (for which we could just use confusion-mechanics and forbid complex actions to make it sensible) - he has to be that character and that just isn't possible for something of such low intelligence.

[heavyfuel]

If we were talking about character chreation, #3 would be the clear answer. We don't let players start unless they have enough int to be players.

But if anything in the game were to reduce a character to below 3 int I'd treat it as "the character is disabled and not playable until fixed" - for the simple reason that you can't roleplay it.
Sure it's easy to describe the behavior of low-intelligence creatures (DMs do it all the time when controlling creatures), but a player has to do much more than control a chesspiece with stats on a battlemap (for which we could just use confusion-mechanics and forbid complex actions to make it sensible) - he has to be that character and that just isn't possible for something of such low intelligence.

Except characters actually do become disabled due to low Int, but that happens at Int 0, not 3. So the character is clearly conscious, just not functioning properly and being unable to be played. Hence the reason why the DM now controls it, much like he would control an animal (especially since the rules actually compare the character to one)

[Shoat]

Except characters actually do become disabled due to low Int, but that happens at Int 0, not 3. So the character is clearly conscious, just not functioning properly and being unable to be played. Hence the reason why the DM now controls it, much like he would control an animal (especially since the rules actually compare the character to one)

I am aware of that, though I didn't think I'd have to mention that in addition to my previous rant (which was meant for the 1-2 INT case).
What I meant by disabled was that, from the perspective of the player, the character is disabled since he can't play him anymore.

[No brains]

I was hoping the Handle Animal skill could provide some clarity, but unfortunately it does not seem to make any mention of commands being spoken... http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/handleAnimal.htm

Speak Language is similarly unhelpful. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/speakLanguage.htm

I'm thinking of looking through the MMs and seeing if there's any mention of the specific intelligence of INT 1 and 2 monsters.

[Jormengand]

The penalty is explicit in that you no longer have humanlike intelligence, which is then left to each individual DM to determine what that means.

It means your intelligence is no longer like that typically associated with a human, whose intelligence is 3d6 under most circumstances.

[TheifofZ]

As per my understanding of stat damage, the player of a character with 2 Int or 1 Int behaves much as an animal, though one with clear training, purpose, and 'friends'.

So a character with 2 or less Int should play more based on the immediate circumstances, with only instinctive responses available.
At 1 Int, checking Feeblemind is actually pretty much the right response for the effects involved.
At 0 Int, the character is unconcious... but a Drunken Master using Drink Like A Demon is unlikely to have the last drink that would be responsible for reducing his Int to 0, as his int would be 2 or lower, and so he'd be more inclined to curl up for a nap at that point -anyway-, as he'd have lost sight of his purpose for drinking that much.

However, in my opinion at least, taking a character away from a player for hitting 2 or 1 Int through Int damage seems both extreme and likely to be un-fun for the player. Especially in a case like this, where they are voluntarily reducing their Intelligence for other stat bonuses, instead.

[OMG PONIES]

On a sidenote, as evidence for #2, could you add the your quotes of the SRD used in #3? They pretty much mean that either #3 happens, or that you no longer qualify for PC-ship.

Added.

Oh, and my Spanish Inquisition sense can't help but notice that you've stated 'three competing answers', and then proceeded to list 1-4 answers.

My mistake--the main debate was between the first three answers, until #4 slid in toward the end of the thread. I've updated the OP.

It means your intelligence is no longer like that typically associated with a human, whose intelligence is 3d6 under most circumstances.

But is that indicative of one of many differences, or an exhaustive list of the only difference?

At 0 Int, the character is unconcious... but a Drunken Master using Drink Like A Demon is unlikely to have the last drink that would be responsible for reducing his Int to 0, as his int would be 2 or lower, and so he'd be more inclined to curl up for a nap at that point -anyway-, as he'd have lost sight of his purpose for drinking that much.

Or, having subhuman intelligence, would his 2 INT brain not realize that drinking more will cause him to pass out? Would he consume based on instinct alone to the point of physical ill, much like my dog who will eat Skittles until he begins vomiting them back up? RIP Roscoe II...

At this point, we get out of RAW and into psychology, but I think roleplaying the moment a Drunken Master drank himself to the point of passing out would be hellacious fun.

However, in my opinion at least, taking a character away from a player for hitting 2 or 1 Int through Int damage seems both extreme and likely to be un-fun for the player. Especially in a case like this, where they are voluntarily reducing their Intelligence for other stat bonuses, instead.

We must be careful, though, when we talk about what is or is not fun. As someone who has tried to both DM and play a 2 INT character in the past, it wound up causing more headaches than it was worth. I would suggest that imposing limits on what is or is not a functional PC might actually make the game more fun for the player herself, the other players at the table, and the DM alike...if handled correctly.

[Shoat]

However, in my opinion at least, taking a character away from a player for hitting 2 or 1 Int through Int damage seems both extreme and likely to be un-fun for the player.

It is certainly not meant as any sort of punishment for the player, simply as a means of protecting the group from the weirdness that ensues. Even 3-6 int characters are weird (players either fall into stereotypical and awkward behavior-patterns or don't know what to do at all).
While I usually encourage players to try unusual stuff (to the point of metaphorically spitting on RAW), some things simply don't work out in a roleplaying game and non-human intelligence is one of them (some other things require specific circumstances or party setups to work out, but I couldn't ever think of one where super-low int does).

My "you can't roleplay 1 or 2 int" statement from before comes from experience (and most of our thought-experiments before we tried it didn't turn out so well either).
If we're in a chilled-out situation, I'd let a player try to do so (if the others will endulge), but it simply doesn't work out - while they usually have suggestions for stuff their low-int guy is likely to do instinctively (such as continue fighting if they're a drunken master), they can't actually roleplay them outside of combat.

[Jormengand]

But is that indicative of one of many differences, or an exhaustive list of the only difference?

Are there any other explicit differences, that are actually given in the rules? Is there anything that actually, explicitly, calls out something that the character suffers for having 1 INT apart from -5 on certain rolls, low skill points, inability to cast wizard spells, and so forth?

[Shoat]

Are there any other explicit differences, that are actually given in the rules? Is there anything that actually, explicitly, calls out something that the character suffers for having 1 INT apart from -5 on certain rolls, low skill points, inability to cast wizard spells, and so forth?

*sigh*

If you really want to delve into the rules here, there are many places where it is mentioned that intelligence scores of 1 or 2 represent an intelligence on the level of an animal (see: every animal's stat block) and that 3 is the minimum expected intelligence for any sort of player, npc or otherwise interactable-with entity of any sort (see: PHB's character creation stuff). Also a score of 0 results in a comatose state.

However, like in many other cases, the people who wrote the rules assume that both players and DM posess common sense and are able to deduce from the above factors that there is more to only having 1 INT than penalties on rolls, skill points and spellcasting.
Just because there is nothing explicitely listing all of the effects of not posessing proper human intelligence doesn't mean those mechanical penalties from -5 modifier are the only effect one suffers.


There is a reason why answer #3 (hint at sort-of related rules and "DM decides" note) is the correct answer to almost every "this isn't directly covered by rules" question that ever pops up here - the rules do not (and cannot possibly ever) cover everything.
We need to fill the rest in with common sense, and someone with 1 intelligence still speaking (or passing obscure knowledge checks because the -5 penalty means nothing in comparison to his skill ranks) goes against common sense (0 int is comatose and 1-2 int is typical animal intelligence). It's unintuitive and utterly destroys fun, just like any "...but by RAW..." or "...but RAW doesn't forbid..." type of statement does.

Do you need the rules to specifically state that gravity exists and which direction it makes people fall?
Do the rules need to give a duration to electromagnetism to judge whether or not we can dispell it with cheesy nonsense?
Do they need to cover whether or not characters have to poop and what roll to make for it?
Do you need the rules to specify whether a class which is clearly intended to specialize in unarmed attacks is proficient with it's own fists?
No, all of those are easily answered with common sense, as the designers expect us to, because it'd be literally impossible to cover every single detail of an entire universe with specific rules.

[BowStreetRunner]

With regard to #2 and the character not being playable, I think that in a temporary situation it would be like anyone who got so drunk they could no longer control their actions. The DM would be justified in temporarily treating the drunk character like an NPC until the effects of the alcohol wore off, then handing the character back to the player with no memory of what had happened during that period.

As to #3 I think that if after applying all templates and other adjustments during character creation you have an INT less than 3 you just make it a 3. That is actually a rule in the PHB. Once the character enters play however the INT can go up and down normally. I would then go with what I said in #2 above, that if the PC has his INT fall below 3 the DM takes control until the effect wears off - the PC is no longer intelligent enough to be consciously played by the player.

[Necroticplague]

I don't recall reading any explicit rules on saying that a non-animal who has his INT decreased to animal levels is any different other than the penalty for having INT so low. Thus, I would go with #4.

If they have the skill ranks to still succeed on INT checks, it means they've managed to memorize enough that they can recall things even when they're too addled to properly make new links. Animals can communicate with each other, so I see no reason why you'd lose that ability if you had it before. Having that low INT could feasibly impede you from learning a new language or learning to write, but I don't see why you would abruptly stop being able to if you could before. And even with less intelligence, you're still the same person, so having him NPC'd doesn't really make sense.

Of course, watch out for any Rays of Stupidity.

[Jormengand]

*sigh*

If you really want to delve into the rules here,

But was that not the entire point of the conversation in the first instance?

This conversation was sparked by a question in the Simple RAW thread

[heavyfuel]

Added.

Thanks PONIES!

It means your intelligence is no longer like that typically associated with a human, whose intelligence is 3d6 under most circumstances.

Well, that's exactly what I said. Of course, it's left up to the DM to determine what "typically associated with a human" means, which can very well be inablity to make decisions, which will now be made by the DM, making the character temporarily an NPC.

Are there any other explicit differences, that are actually given in the rules? Is there anything that actually, explicitly, calls out something that the character suffers for having 1 INT apart from -5 on certain rolls, low skill points, inability to cast wizard spells, and so forth?

Inability to cast Beguiler spells? Kidding. Again, no explicit calls aside from no longer having humanlike intelligence, which seems to have been left for DMs to decide.

With regard to #2 and the character not being playable, I think that in a temporary situation it would be like anyone who got so drunk they could no longer control their actions. The DM would be justified in temporarily treating the drunk character like an NPC until the effects of the alcohol wore off, then handing the character back to the player with no memory of what had happened during that period.

As to #3 I think that if after applying all templates and other adjustments during character creation you have an INT less than 3 you just make it a 3. That is actually a rule in the PHB. Once the character enters play however the INT can go up and down normally. I would then go with what I said in #2 above, that if the PC has his INT fall below 3 the DM takes control until the effect wears off - the PC is no longer intelligent enough to be consciously played by the player.

Yes, I meant it as a temporary penalty. As long as your Int is below 3, you lose control of your actions and PC status. When it raises back to 3 or more, you go back to just being stupid

Could you quote your PHB rule? I don't think I remember it being there (unless you're talking about the half-orc clause).

I don't recall reading any explicit rules on saying that a non-animal who has his INT decreased to animal levels is any different other than the penalty for having INT so low. Thus, I would go with #4.

Then you haven't read the OP.

"An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3."

If you don't have a score of at least 3, you don't have humanlike intelligence.

[Jormengand]

Well, that's exactly what I said. Of course, it's left up to the DM to determine what "typically associated with a human" means

Typically associated with a human means between 3 and 18. If you have an INT score of 1 or 2, all that means is that it's no longer between 3 and 18. Neither is 19. The effect of having non-humanlike intelligence, in and of itself, is zilch.

[heavyfuel]

Typically associated with a human means between 3 and 18. If you have an INT score of 1 or 2, all that means is that it's no longer between 3 and 18. Neither is 19. The effect of having non-humanlike intelligence, in and of itself, is zilch.

Could you point where "typically associated with a human" is said to be the exact same thing as "humanlike"? If you can't, the matter is still open to interpretation.

[Jormengand]

Could you point where "typically associated with a human" is said to be the exact same thing as "humanlike"? If you can't, the matter is still open to interpretation.

Humanlike is not defined in the rules, so we default to English: Humanlike intelligence is intelligence like that of a human. In any case, it doesn't matter, because no penalties are prescribed for being non-humanlike.

[heavyfuel]

Humanlike is not defined in the rules, so we default to English: Humanlike intelligence is intelligence like that of a human.

Fair enough. Though I'd still like to keep this point open-ish. Do books like Savage Species, MM2~4 or others ever mention what it like to have humanlike int? If they do, defaulting to English no longer applies.

In any case, it doesn't matter, because no penalties are prescribed for being non-humanlike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8QRExBfQhs

There so is a penalty.

This is important, because creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters

That's as clear as day

[nedz]

#1 seems reasonable — it just needs fluffing up a bit. Int 1 => the character is incoherent through drink.

#2 seems meaningless because this is a temporary, drug induced, state.

#3 no — that rule only applies during char gen.

#4 Even if this were true mechanically: I'd expect my players to role-play loss of coherence, which makes this moot. The rules used should support the role-play.

[hamishspence]

Fair enough. Though I'd still like to keep this point open-ish. Do books like Savage Species, MM2~4 or others ever mention what it like to have humanlike int? If they do, defaulting to English no longer applies.

I think it came up in Dragon Magazine's Sage Advice at least, as a guideline for roleplaying INT 3 characters.

[ericgrau]

The strict RAW answer is that their int is 2 or 1 and that's it. They are roughly as intelligent as animal, but do not necessarily think the same way as one. They don't necessarily lose their ability to speak either. All those details are up to interpretation and the DM.

My opinion is that it is similar to a feeblemind spell.

Note that the two don't contradict each other. RAW merely does not specify more detail than that. It's an old fallacy to say "RAW doesn't say you can/can't so you can't/can". Really all that means is "undefined".

[heavyfuel]

I think it came up in Dragon Magazine's Sage Advice at least, as a guideline for roleplaying INT 3 characters.

While Sage and RAW are far from being the same thing, I don't suppose you could dig it up? Or at least point me in the right direction.

The strict RAW answer is that their int is 2 or 1 and that's it.

Are people really not reading the whole "creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters"?

Even if this rule is mentioned while talking about character creation, it doesn't change the fact that it's unrelated to it (your newly created char can't have int below 3 because creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters)

[BowStreetRunner]

Could you quote your PHB rule? I don't think I remember it being there (unless you're talking about the half-orc clause).

ABILITY ADJUSTMENTS
Find your character’s race on Table 2–1: Racial Ability Adjustments (see the next page) and apply the adjustments you see there to your character’s ability scores. If these changes put your score above 18 or below 3, that’s okay, except in the case of Intelligence, which does not go below 3 for characters. (If your half-orc character would have an adjusted Intelligence of 1 or 2, make it 3 instead.)

Note that the Half-Orc is the only PHB race that actually incurs a penalty to INT, hence the parenthetical note. However, the rule itself applies to all characters, not just half-orcs.

[heavyfuel]

Note that the Half-Orc is the only PHB race that actually incurs a penalty to INT, hence the parenthetical note. However, the rule itself applies to all characters, not just half-orcs.

Yup. Seems pretty clear that your Int can never be below 3 when creating a character. Thanks!

[ericgrau]

Are people really not reading the whole "creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters"?

Even if this rule is mentioned while talking about character creation, it doesn't change the fact that it's unrelated to it (your newly created char can't have int below 3 because creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters)

They should not be playable characters. It is in fact specifically related to character creation. Those who can't communicate make dull role-players. It's totally fine as a temporary condition.

[heavyfuel]

They should not be playable characters. It is in fact specifically related to character creation. Those who can't communicate make dull role-players. It's totally fine as a temporary condition.

Read the RAW quote again. It's not they shouldn't be PCs, it's they are not playable characters.