Is INT useless?

[Chaosticket]

Its not just about bare stats, its also about the proficiencies and spells if they have them..

Having Wisdom as just one stat can focus on everything about that. You can be a Cleric or Druid, and to be good as casting and to fulfill the requirements for tier 9 spells youll probably have 19 Wisdom at some point. Wisdom is also a Save stat for both. Then you have skills either from your class or from race & background.

On the other hand aside from skill checks they dont use Intelligence or Charisma. They also dont need Strength as they have their respective attack Cantrips, Sacred Flame for the Cleric and Shillelagh for the Druid.

So they only need 3 stats out of the 6, Wisdom, Dexterity, and Constitution. Everyone needs Dexterity and Constitution.

Without proficiency and a lot of stat points you are unlikely to pass anything as a 5-10 point difference on a d20 dice is massive.

Intelligence, only the Wizard uses that. Most of the spellcasters use Charisma, so oddly Intelligence has become a dump stat while Charisma is a conditional dump stat. I looked up the Artificier and Mystic and at least they also use Intelligence.

[Kane0]

You can be a Cleric or Druid, and to be good as casting and to fulfill the requirements for tier 9 spells youll probably have 19 Wisdom at some point.

You don't even need that. An EK (int caster) can dump INT to 8 and still be perfectly functional using Alarm, Magic Missile, Shield, Absorb Elements, Floating Disk, Unseen Servant, Mirror Image, Darkness, Magic Weapon, Haste, Sending, etc

[2D8HP]

I've had exactly one 5e PC with an "INT" higher than 10, it was a High Elf Rogue with a 19 krolled stat +1 for High Elf).

I'd mostly played Champion Fighters in 5e at that time and another player got very upset that I wouldn't play a Wizard, but my looking at the rules confirmed that just I didn't have enough RL intelligence to handle all the options crunch and resource management required to effectively use that Class (the other player whining about my playing "sub-optimally has still left a bad taste).

But still the only 5e character that I've played that had a higher INT than 10 (because I rolled stats) was a moron because I as a player made some dumb mistakes, yeah role-playing INT, WIS, and CHA is a problem.

I've never seen people playing smarter than their stat, quite the reverse, same with wiser or more persuasive.

Smart and wise people don't usually run towards fire breathing Dragons!

Yes they are real-life heroes that go into burning buildings to rescue people, but usually they get a pension for it, or they are actual people to be saved, not just doing it for experience!

Face it, most PC's are mad men (which makes them fun to play)!

I can Role-play dumber than I am, but more intelligent? I guess maybe if I'm allowed more time to consider events (and take notes) then the PC has, otherwise it's not happening!

Anyway, 8 and 9 are not that bad!

Check it out:

A "Commoner" (common human) on page 345 of the Monster Manual has a ten in all stats, so that's average. We may infer that it's derived from the most likely result of rolling 3d6 for "stats" (as in the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons volume 1, Men & Magic).
The nearly actual odds for rolling each and every 3d6 sum, from 3 to 18 (rounded numbers) are:

3: 0.5% (actually 0.46, or 1 in 216, but rounded off for this table)
4: 1.4%
5: 2.8%
6: 4.6%
7: 6.9%
8: 9.7%
9: 11.6%
10: 12.5%
11: 12.5%
12: 11.6%
13: 9.7%
14: 6.9%
15: 4.6%
16: 2.8%
17: 1.4%
18: 0.5% (as 3’s note above)

So someone with a 10 INT is at least as smart as about 49.96% of humans.
Someone with a 9 is as at least as smart as about 37.46% of people.
And someone with an INT of 8 is at least as smart as 25.86% of folks.

Not too shabby!

By definition half of all people are below "average", I just don't buy that "Adventurers" must always be in the "smart", "strong", "wise", etc., half, and always be better than average in everything, especially when 5e PC's already start so powerful and rocket so quickly up the levels to their first ASI potentially cancelling out the one (slightly) below average stat (if the player choses).

"Standard Array" and "Point buy" in 5e are great changes that help me legitimately role-play PC's almost as dumb as I am.

Besides this "Adventurers are exceptional" claptrap has gone too far!

How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!

From page 19 of 1974's Dungeons & Dragons Book 1 "Men & Magic" - "Normal men equal 1st-level fighters"



(They were usually slightly better than commoners, not always "exceptional" dagnabbit!)

Check out the 1974 Attack Matrix:



(Note: "Normal men equal 1st level Fighters", despite the level title being "Veteran".
Dirty Peasants of the world unite!)


And here's the AD&D one only a few years later:



(Note: the introduction of "0 level humans", so snooty PC's can have people that they fight better than, starting the whole rotten "PC's are exceptional" junk).




I insist on my still being able to dump INT as is good, true, right, beautiful, and proper!

[Luccan]

~Snip~

I mean, you can dump Int, but that doesn't make it as universally a good idea as some people have lead on, at least in my opinion. Also, peasants used fighting-man stats because all fighting-man had was Strongth (no magical or criminal abilities) and they weren't very good at fighting at first level. By default, they were the closest thing the rules had to an average person at the time. Yeah, if you want to do a "you suck to you're actually halfway decent at the thing you do for a living" game, that might be harder to do in 5e, but starting out completely terrible at your profession hasn't been the expectation of D&D for some time. Certainly not in 5th edition.

[KorvinStarmast]

Intelligence is a useless, if you just pick up a stick and beat people to death.

A certain fighter may wish to discuss this with you.

Intelligence is the new Cha. Totally useless unless you are a Wizard or EK. That's why I've houseruled 1 extra language or tool for each bonus point.

While I don't agree with useless, I do like your house rule in re tools and languages. Languages used to matter, which I like, even though that can make some encounters a little clunky. (Our current adventures have found us fighting mostly giants, and none of us speaks giant except for the Goliath. Handy guy to have on the team!)

[2D8HP]

...if you want to do a "you suck to you're actually halfway decent at the thing you do for a living" game, that might be harder to do in 5e,

.
First Level 5e PC's are great as is, I mostly just resist the cries for "most powah" I often see out of fear that a 6e will do exactly that.

[Xuldarinar]

A certain fighter may wish to discuss this with you.

Thank you very much for bringing him up.

[Chaosticket]

A problem is that 8-10 is average across everyone so nobody is "stupid, weak, gullible" just by stats. This isnt like earlier editions where you could make statistics 1-20 and have to play with handicaps. Some people would just ignore their characters stats in roleplaying and play as they wanted.

That Order of the Stick page is like many things an inside joke. Humans in 3.5 have a skill point bonus. Roy also has above average intelligence for skill checks which means even more skills. Combine those with Knowledge skills being intelligence based and there is synergy between stat build and character/player choice..

Sorry explained the joke.

[2D8HP]

A certain fighter may wish to discuss this with you.

Thank you very much for bringing him up.

....That Order of the Stick page is like many things an inside joke. Humans in 3.5 have a skill point.....

Bah!

Talky man talk too much!

[Daphne]

I'd mostly played Champion Fighters in 5e at that time

I too like the Champion, simplicity has its own charm.

another player got very upset that I wouldn't play a Wizard, but my looking at the rules confirmed that just I didn't have enough RL intelligence to handle all the options crunch and resource management required to effectively use that Class (the other player whining about my playing "sub-optimally has still left a bad taste).

I can see why it left a bad taste, I just got a bad first impression of him.

A "Commoner" (common human) on page 345 of the Monster Manual has a ten in all stats, so that's average. We may infer that it's derived from the most likely result of rolling 3d6 for "stats" (as in the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons volume 1, Men & Magic).

I disagree, we should use 4d6, drop lowest, to get a distribution, as it is the standard Attribute generation in 5th Edition.

[Snowbluff]

You don't even need that. An EK (int caster) can dump INT to 8 and still be perfectly functional using Alarm, Magic Missile, Shield, Absorb Elements, Floating Disk, Unseen Servant, Mirror Image, Darkness, Magic Weapon, Haste, Sending, etc

Well, You need int to MC into or out of Arcane Trickster and EK, IIRC.

A certain fighter may wish to discuss this with you.

Where was this when I made my quip about that exact knowledge skill? XD

[2D8HP]

I too like the Champion, simplicity has its own charm...

.


Awesome!

...I disagree, we should use 4d6, drop lowest, to get a distribution, as it is the standard Attribute generation in 5th Edition.

.
For PC's yes, but 4d6b3 gets us an average roll of 13, instead of the roughly 10.5 that 3d6 averages to, which would make "commoners" stats all below average, unless that's the case, I think the intent is to have PC's be above average in stats.

FWLIW, I think a standard human, with 11 in one "stat" and 14 in the rest, may make for a great PC, and I find "Standard Array" and "Standard Equipment" pretty awesome!

[rooneg]

Well, You need int to MC into or out of Arcane Trickster and EK, IIRC.

No you don't. AT and EK are Rogue and Fighter archetypes, you need STR or DEX for Fighter and DEX for Rogue. Neither of them care even a little bit about your INT for multiclass purposes.

[Kane0]

You can be a Cleric or Druid, and to be good as casting and to fulfill the requirements for tier 9 spells youll probably have 19 Wisdom at some point.

You don't even need that. An EK (int caster) can dump INT to 8 and still be perfectly functional using Alarm, Magic Missile, Shield, Absorb Elements, Floating Disk, Unseen Servant, Mirror Image, Darkness, Magic Weapon, Haste, Sending, etc

People missing major point that both the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are tier 4 Arcane Spellcasters so they need 14 Intelligence to use all their spells.

However technically you arent required to have any points in intelligence to multiclass in or out of them, but its pointless to even think about them without at least Intelligence 10 to cast Tier 0 Cantrips.

It would actually be easy to make a big mistake if you dont remember that.

Dude. Read.

Edit: More specifically, unlike 3.X you don't need a casting stat of X to cast Y level spells. Your casting stat sets your spell attack, DC and sometimes spells memorized/known but not your slots or ability to cast.

[Squiddish]

Int is distinctly not useless, and I wouldn't even call it the least useful stat.

Mechanically, it does the least for your character. Sure, it has skills, but so does everything except constitution, and they're all used for something that, in least in theory, a character whose build doesn't rely on those things might use.

HOWEVER, most of the benefits given by strength are tenuous at best if your build doesn't rely on it. Sure, dumping strength might mean you can't bust down the door on your own, or can't quite carry everything, but if the party has someone for whom strength is important to their build (or, imagine this, some sort of beast that can carry burdens) they can probably carry all of their stuff and all of your stuff combined. The big burly fighter/barbarian/paladin can quite easily bash down a door, and if they can't, that's what crowbars are for. Most problems conventionally solved with brute strength can be solved with wits and a bit of equipment, or, if you happen to be a spellcaster, some low-level spells or cantrips. Strength saves aren't terribly common, and they're typically against fairly simple things like being moved or knocked prone.

Charisma, too, can be safely dumped. The party usually has a face, and unless you're them, you probably won't get much use out of your charisma. Charisma saves are typically important, sure, but they're also quite uncommon.

Now that we're thinking about it, how much do we really need dexterity? Look, all I'm saying is that if people were meant to dodge things, then why do we have HP in the first place?

In most cases, intelligence might not be terribly useful, but it can be more interesting than playing another dumb-as-rocks martial. While those characters can be fun, they aren't fun because they're optimized. Nine times out of ten, the slight difference of which of your 3 or so unused stats you have as your obligatory optimization dump stat doesn't make a severe mechanical difference (to be clear, I am not against the idea of dump stats, just against the idea that there's such thing as a "best" dump stat). Your stats are so intrinsic to your character that reducing your choice of weakness to a mere mechanical optimization attempt is a huge waste.

[Dyndrilliac]

My personal opinion (based on extensive play both at home and at the FLGS in organized AL games) is that of all the attributes, STR is the weakest mechanically. Here are all the area where it is reasonably useful: attacks/damage, carry weight, Athletics, and wearing Heavy Armor.

Attacks and damage can be replaced with DEX or a casting stat. You get 120 pounds of carry weight even if you dump STR by default. Athletics is only really useful for grapplers: DEX-based characters can get many of the same benefits with Acrobatics. There are many alternatives to armor, let alone Heavy Armor. Personally I'd rather have Unarmored Defense, Draconic Resilience, Shield, or Mirror Image.

The only class in the whole game where it really shines dramatically is Barbarian.

So no, my answer is that INT is not useless; it's much more useful than STR, which is the least useful attribute. Still not useless, you can build a mechanically strong high-STR character. Just like you can build a mechanically strong high-INT character or a mechanically strong low-INT character.

[Snowbluff]

I've encountered a bunch of effects where Acro couldn't sub for Athl. Athl is almost as all powerful as perception. Plus, being able to just restrain someone is great if you're outnumbering your foe. Furthermore, strength saves are common on a bunch of spells and monster abilities that involve being restrained.

Str is good. Not quite as good as Dex, but it's still substantially better than int. Str can give AC, thanks to heavy armor (which STACKS with shield and mirror image, and unarmoed defense is only better if you have NO magic armor and maxed out your dex and other stat), but doesn't give init like dex, but unlike Int you can at least use it to fight. It's a joke to even think Int is anywhere remotely as good as Str unless you're a wizard.

[Chaosticket]

Strength Vs Intelligence. In this thread I dont want to compare editions too much.

Intelligence was useful in some degree to every character in 3.5 because even if you didnt specialize in intelligence base skills adding +1 skill point adding+10/20 rank from having +2 intelligence at character creation could be a major help. Pathfinder made it even better as there arent any cross-skill penalties so its just a +20, of course you can spread it out. With no extra from Intelligence being anything but minimum, aka average, its a dump stat.

Strength on any class that isnt melee is for carrying capacity in all editions. With Intelligence being reduced strength is more useful for everyone but the Wizard, Artificier, and Mystic.

[Naanomi]

The challenge in 3.X to Intelligence being tied to skill points was that you had to start doing math on prerequisites for prestige classes and the like... ‘wait, I need to have at least 12 Intelligence to be a tattooed berserker?’

[Beelzebubba]

These are nice approaches. I like them a lot. Subtle yet substantial.

I picked it up from discussions on this board!

[Citan]

I'd really like to play in campaign with all those people saying that STR is basically useless if you don't rely on it for attacks...

My players would certainly have a different opinion: my Monk and Rogue friends for example, who got stuck by an Ensnaring Strike, grappled or prone down quite a few times because they were all about "maximizing stats" and dumped STR to the max (which isn't even actually optimizing for Rogue, considering he was all about looting) and got nearly killed or at least useless for several turns as a result...

Another reason why they are lesser STR effects than DEX is that STR get standard tactics associated with (Shove / Grapple) expanding the potential number of "calls" to it.

People here should be glad that STR-based restrain/prone/push effects are uncommon and as such require specific campaign setting or specific care of the DM to vary encounter challenges, because if this was really as common as DEX-based damage effects they'd really cry... XD

[Chaosticket]

I might be wrong but those are effects with strength based saving throws? Monk and Rogue dont have Strength Saving Throw Proficiency so at best they might be okay with high strength, but theyre not going to easily pass it like a maxed out Barbarian would.

Early in the 5th edition players handbook it still tells people to specialize in stats and party roles.

[Snowbluff]

I usually grab Athletics expertise on my Bards and Rogues, since it helps with swimming, grappling, and climbing. You can use acrobatics to avoid being shoved or grappled, though. However, a weird quirk of 5e is that those rules simple don't always apply, as it seems like to me a lot of monsters can restrain you with a save, never letting you use athletics to escape. :l

[KorvinStarmast]

I might be wrong .

By dragging tiers into this discussion, yeah. I'll offer that the tier thing is best left to 3.5/PF discussions.

Early in the 5th edition players handbook it still tells people to specialize in stats and party roles.

Yes, and it's a good suggestion. The idea of playing to your strengths in a game system where class and archetype is a design feature fits that nicely.

I'll suggest that in a game with all three pillars of play being used: Exploration, Social Interaction, and Combat, Intelligence features in a lot of areas (as well as when dealing with illusions).

Intelligence Checks Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, Religion and then

• Communicate with a creature without using words
• Estimate the value of a precious item
• Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard
• Forge a document
• Recall lore about a craft or trade
• Win a game of skill

All of these are useful in a game using all three pillars.

[Citan]

I might be wrong but those are effects with strength based saving throws? Monk and Rogue dont have Strength Saving Throw Proficiency so at best they might be okay with high strength, but theyre not going to easily pass it like a maxed out Barbarian would.

Early in the 5th edition players handbook it still tells people to specialize in stats and party roles.

No, and that's exactly my point actually. ;)

The "might be okay" makes all the difference sometimes: a 3 points difference (8-14) may seem small, but that represents a 15% chance discrepancy.
Since most restraining effects give you a chance at making a check after initial turn, you may, or not, regret those 3 points more often than not.

It's always the question of whether to get midly specialized in saves without blatant weakness, or wildly specialized with bigass holes in defense but bet on teamwork to cover for it.

For example, with a Bard in party that has the habit of distributing Bardic Inspiration, or a (Quickening? Distant?) Sorcerer knowing Enhance Ability (well, any caster really, but since Sorcerers have lesser spell known they tend to be more consistant in how they react and what spells they use^^), I'd personally wouldn't worry as a mobility-based class to have a low STR. Although I'd be frustrated to require an ally using resource and possibly his action, hey, it happens.
As a Rogue that took Expertise in Athletics in spite of having 10 STR, I wouldn't either. The bonus will offset poor stat soon enough.

If nobody can help me though? I would try to get a 12, at least a 10 (). When I roll poorly, I will think "hey, maybe this was a waste". But when I succeed on edge, I'll be glad of the investment. ;)

Also, we always follow encumberance rules in my games, either as player or DM, that is important too: I want to be able to carry all my equipment and loot without problem.
I possibly want to be able to carry a wounded friend instead of just dragging (probably houserule here: willing/unconscious creature is considered "luggage" so normal speed if not in excess weight, but dragging still halves move, because more difficult to handle than lifting and running))

[jas61292]

From a pure optimization standpoint, Int is in no way the worst stat, unless you have a DM that fails to utilize it. In fact, from the combat centric point of view that most people optimize for, I'd say that Charisma is by far the worst. Negotiation, information procurement and other such things can often be unneeded if you replace them with an appropriate amount of violence. But you still never find the treasure with violence, nor will violence help you recall lore or solve a puzzle.

Furthermore, from a team perspective, doubling up on Cha is comparatively useless. Failing charisma checks is likely to make further attempts harder or futile. On the other hand, the more people there are who are likely to know the information or find and analyze the clue, the more likely the party as a whole is to succeed.

Frankly, the only reason people consider Cha less bad is because it is the key stat for more classes. Independent of class, however, Intelligence provides much more, so long as the DM is actually using it.

[Chaosticket]

Intelligence gets a backlash as it went from a useful ability on every character, to only useful on 3 classes.
In 3rd edition and Pathfinder the extra Will Save from having a higher Wisdom score could be raised other ways, but actually getting +1-20 skill points as a character is much harder.

In 5th edition Intelligence just isnt as useful.

[Tanarii]

Furthermore, from a team perspective, doubling up on Cha is comparatively useless. Failing charisma checks is likely to make further attempts harder or futile. On the other hand, the more people there are who are likely to know the information or find and analyze the clue, the more likely the party as a whole is to succeed.

Frankly, the only reason people consider Cha less bad is because it is the key stat for more classes. Independent of class, however, Intelligence provides much more, so long as the DM is actually using it.

Yup. pretty much. With most DMs you only need one face, and it's already provided by one of the Cha casters.

Possibly two if your DM allows a second player to help in the negotiations.

Of course, if you have a DM like me who runs the conversation, has a rule that table talk is reflected in game, decides what check (if any) is needed for final resolution, and you are a player that just can't keep your mouth shut, it's probably a good idea to have a decent Cha. I can't count the number of times multiple players with low Cha couldn't stop chiming in (peanut gallery) during negotiations, turning it from a single check for the 'Face' with high Charisma to a Group Check with one good roller and 2-3 bad rollers.

Edit: that said, with many DMs, this also applies to Lore checks. You can get away with one lore master, and maybe an assist. But having a high Int character due to class stats, already in the part anyway, is less likely. (With DMs that allow everyone to roll a Lore check with only one success needed, you can just assume your group will pass almost all of them. For some reason many DMs don't understand they are wasting table time with these checks.)

[Xetheral]

For charisma checks, don't underestimate the added options that come with having multiple specialists. Good Cop/Bad Cop, Two-Person Cons, and Working a Room, for exmple, all are only reasonable options with multiple characters competent in social skills, and all offer social-engineering outcomes unachievable with only a single face.

Edit: that said, with many DMs, this also applies to Lore checks. You can get away with one lore master, and maybe an assist. But having a high Int character due to class stats, already in the part anyway, is less likely. (With DMs that allow everyone to roll a Lore check with only one success needed, you can just assume your group will pass almost all of them. For some reason many DMs don't understand they are wasting table time with these checks.)

For a binary check I agree with you. But if a DM provides more information the higher the result of the knowledge check, letting everyone roll only ensures the group will know the basic knowledge. The results with higher DCs are the domain of the specialists, and the top DCs only if they roll well, which makes having multiple specialists valuable.

[Tanarii]

For charisma checks, don't underestimate the added options that come with having multiple specialists. Good Cop/Bad Cop, Two-Person Cons, and Working a Room, for exmple, all are only reasonable options with multiple characters competent in social skills, and all offer social-engineering outcomes unachievable with only a single face.

Some of which is fairly easily represented by one character helping the other. That wouldn't require the second character to use their Cha.

Making it a group check or two individual checks needed would actually make the check harder than a single check.

For a binary check I agree with you. But if a DM provides more information the higher the result of the knowledge check, letting everyone roll only ensures the group will know the basic knowledge. The results with higher DCs are the domain of the specialists, and the top DCs only if they roll well, which makes having multiple specialists valuable.

True, it matters more for degree of success/failure checks too.

Individual checks, passive checks, helping, group checks, and automatic success given time already work fairly well with Int checks. I find that as a DM, as long as I keep in mind that if the characters can't share the info (individual checks), are making a secret check (passive), can share info but don't know who is right or wrong (group check), or have time (auto success) that handles the majority of Int checks needed. Individual checks with a know/don't know state where they can share info, I might as well give it to them unless it's a very hard check in the first place.

Keep in mind I'm not a fan of "state of the character's knowledge" checks either. I prefer Int checks as "recall info" checks, mostly in stressful situations where you can't take time to remember.