For non wizard/artificer characters, I see a lot that this stat is dumped for maxing more relevant stats. Int can be very interesting, I am a monk with high int that likes to investigate. It's depends on the dm, on the campaign, perhaps. Yet perhaps int gives less benefits than the others?
I LOVE playing high INT characters. A lot of my fun from RPGS comes from discovering the lore of the world the DM crafted. And since INT gives bonuses to all the knowledge skills, it really helps with that.
I really enjoy being able to ask "Would My character know about this?" to pretty much everything lol
Obligatory - the stats are as important as you make them out to be.
If the DM never makes people roll INT ability checks, then yes it will be unimportant to the campaign. Not many monsters have INT saving throw abilities so from a monster stand point is doesn't hold the same value as WIS. For RP - obviously each table is different, but a 6 INT PC is not going to be leading the strategy meeting before combat unless the table chooses to ignore the stats of PCs.
Obligatory - the stats are as important as you make them out to be.
If the DM never makes people roll INT ability checks, then yes it will be unimportant to the campaign. Not many monsters have INT saving throw abilities so from a monster stand point is doesn't hold the same value as WIS. For RP - obviously each table is different, but a 6 INT PC is not going to be leading the strategy meeting before combat unless the table chooses to ignore the stats of PCs.
The second point is a bit complicated to play, honestly. First, in terms of leading the meeting, it would probably be Cha before Int, but that is a secondary point. Also secondary is that, in most methods, you won't get stats as low as 6. But more importantly, there is a difference between what the PCs actually say and what the players say as they are discussing strategy between them. I am all for roleplay, and storytelling and all that, but even at our similarly minded tables, players still like to exchange about plans and such between them in a more informal way. So in a way it sort of depends on another factor at your table, how much of that "free talk" happens.
Sorry if it wasn't blatantly clear in my post but the comment on strategy has NOTHING to do with OOC talk. Many games I have been apart of the PCs tend to talk out combat strategy in game before they get the drop on someone. So low INT that PC is not talking much about positioning, flanking, and actually tactics and tactical words. Sure they can cover it with "well what if I just move to his back instead?" but the point still stands a low INT character is not going to be doing much intelligent talking IN GAME.
Didn't realize I would have to specify that since, we are in fact talking about the INT score of D&D, not the intelligence of the humans operating the system.
One house rule we used in our group was that you get extra skill/language/tool proficiencies based on your Int. You could pick one extra prof. for each point of int modifier.
I wouldn't say that Intelligence is an underpowered statistic. It's just that people who only concern themselves with combat and surprises don't value it at all.
Five skills key off of Intelligence, one of which is used detection and deduction. The others are for gathering information. None of these are bad to have, and a well-rounded one-shot or campaign will make use of them.
And then Xanathar's Guide to Everything gave them more uses. They have synergies with tool proficiencies. You can use Arcana (or perhaps Religion, if you're a divine spellcaster), as a reaction, to identify a spell being cast that you don't already know. Having a higher than average Intelligence can also lessen the time it takes to learn new languages or tool proficiencies, which also saves your character gold.
As much as I dislike the 3.5/Pathfinder system, I REALLY liked the skill rank mechanic and how you got points based on INT and class! I really miss how different characters felt in terms of skill proficiency.
I wouldn't say that Intelligence is an underpowered statistic. It's just that people who only concern themselves with combat and surprises don't value it at all.
Five skills key off of Intelligence, one of which is used detection and deduction. The others are for gathering information. None of these are bad to have, and a well-rounded one-shot or campaign will make use of them.
And then Xanathar's Guide to Everything gave them more uses. They have synergies with tool proficiencies. You can use Arcana (or perhaps Religion, if you're a divine spellcaster), as a reaction, to identify a spell being cast that you don't already know. Having a higher than average Intelligence can also lessen the time it takes to learn new languages or tool proficiencies, which also saves your character gold.
TRUE TRUE!! Just because passing a knowledge check doesn't get you a mechanical benefit, doesn't mean its useless! My favorite character I've ever played was a high int character with proficiency in all the knowledge skills. His skills came up more often than ANY other party member and often led to us learning something about the current plot that greatly helped!
I've noticed a lot of things that people on these forums call "Underpowered" are usually only so from a combat standpoint (i.e. Sorcerers. But thats a different conversation lol)
There is this concept within the meta design of the game that divides stats into primary and secondary biased on saving throws. The primary saves are Dex, Con, and Wis. While the secondary are Str, Int, and Cha. Here is a breakdown of what I mean within spells and skills (excluding tool proficiencies)
Str saves: 18, Skills: 1
Dex saves: 63. Skills: 3
Con saves: 54. Skills: 0
Int saves: 8, Skills: 5
Wis save: 53, Skills: 5
Cha save: 14, Skills 3
Some of those skills are used much more often then others and will very between games heavily. Perception is probably one of the most used skills, as is Stealth, and probably insight. You also have to remember that Str and Dex have weapon attacks affiliated with them, Con has HP tied to it and Dex has Initiative and AC tied to it. There are also certain actions that require specific types of contested checks, usually Str athletics or Dex acrobatics.
Given all of that, if Int isn't a primary spell casting stat it has much less use to have then say, wisdom.
None of this taking into account the different abilities that monsters have which usually require a Str, Con, Dex or Wis save depending on what the effect is.
Purely mechanically in the game, Int is probably the most beneficial dump stats, especially if the game you are playing wont require many Archana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion checks.
You can use Arcana (or perhaps Religion, if you're a divine spellcaster), as a reaction, to identify a spell being cast that you don't already know.
This is actually much less useful than it might seem. Using it as a Reaction only has an impact if we're talking combat. The major (maybe only?) reason to want to identify a spell as it's being cast is to determine whether you want to Counterspell it. Having used your reaction to identify it, you no longer have the ability to Counterspell it. If your DM allows free communication at any point during the round, then you could partner up two characters, one to identify the spell being cast, who then communicates the information to a second character who can cast Counterspell, and uses the information to decide, which means spending two Reactions to counter a spell.
Specifically looking for an intruder in a section of the warehouse, or conducting a thorough search of the warehouse: Investigation
You see, that doesn't feel right to me. You don't need to be intelligent to thoroughly search or look for an intruder. Just look at the intelligence of many police officers and security guards... (Note: this is intended as a joke)
To me, investigation is about reasoning, about putting clues together, linking that with memories about facts/lore/etc. Noticing that a painting didn't fit in with the style of the rest, figuring out the order to put symbols in a puzzle, working out the mechanical operation of a complex trap in order to allow it to be disarmed, remembering that the suspect wears a specific material and matching that to the scrap of material you have found. These are investigation, or at least intelligence-based, tasks. Looking for something, that isn't, unless they are hidden in a way which involves reasoning/memory/etc to figure out.
Yes, it is more of an RP stat. It's one of the less-used saves and has nothing to do with attack rolls, saves, or DC, except for those classes. But there are more skills based on it than any other stat. It really just depends how often your DM calls for those skill checks. If your campaign doesn't involve a lot of lore, you won't be using History much. If it doesn't involve a lot of wilderness travel, you might not use Nature much. Investigation is pretty generally useful for traps and secret doors, though, so I think you want at least one Velma in your party, even if your campaign doesn't involve Scooby-Dooing as a plot device.
OK, I can see that in some cases. It would very much depend on what/who was being searched for, though. Just generically, looking for a person (intruder or not) or "thoroughly searching" is more perception. Looking for a skilled thief, or searching a room with hidden compartments, investigation comes into play.
You can use Arcana (or perhaps Religion, if you're a divine spellcaster), as a reaction, to identify a spell being cast that you don't already know.
This is actually much less useful than it might seem. Using it as a Reaction only has an impact if we're talking combat. The major (maybe only?) reason to want to identify a spell as it's being cast is to determine whether you want to Counterspell it. Having used your reaction to identify it, you no longer have the ability to Counterspell it. If your DM allows free communication at any point during the round, then you could partner up two characters, one to identify the spell being cast, who then communicates the information to a second character who can cast Counterspell, and uses the information to decide, which means spending two Reactions to counter a spell.
The merits of counterspell aside, the last thing anyone wants to do is spend it on a cantrip. Or worse, if it isn't even a spell at all.
If the DM allows for that kind of teamwork, then yeah, it's teamwork. The party is working together to solve a problem. That's fantastic. And if the spell succeeds the first time so the party can counter it on subsequent turns, then the baddie still gets to do something cool and the party is adapting to the circumstances.
It facilitates roleplaying. That's not a bad thing, even if you (or someone else) disagrees with it.
I think Intelligence is certainly under utilized in D&D. The fact that Investigation is keyed to Intelligence means that Intelligence is the Attribute used to figure out what things mean, how things work, and how things came to be. The issue with it being an RPG is that it's not fun when your character can't figure out what anything means because that means they miss out on plot, so DM's don't bother making many of those things into skill checks, and rightly so, because making the progression of even simple plots hinge on a successful dice roll is unfun when failure means a do nothing dead end. Of course, if the story progresses anyhow and there is an interesting (for good or ill) development either way, sure do ahead and make it a dice roll, but I think that's high level DM skills, to be able to make fun story to account for both success and failure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You can use Arcana (or perhaps Religion, if you're a divine spellcaster), as a reaction, to identify a spell being cast that you don't already know.
This is actually much less useful than it might seem. Using it as a Reaction only has an impact if we're talking combat. The major (maybe only?) reason to want to identify a spell as it's being cast is to determine whether you want to Counterspell it. Having used your reaction to identify it, you no longer have the ability to Counterspell it. If your DM allows free communication at any point during the round, then you could partner up two characters, one to identify the spell being cast, who then communicates the information to a second character who can cast Counterspell, and uses the information to decide, which means spending two Reactions to counter a spell.
The merits of counterspell aside, the last thing anyone wants to do is spend it on a cantrip. Or worse, if it isn't even a spell at all.
If the DM allows for that kind of teamwork, then yeah, it's teamwork. The party is working together to solve a problem. That's fantastic. And if the spell succeeds the first time so the party can counter it on subsequent turns, then the baddie still gets to do something cool and the party is adapting to the circumstances.
It facilitates roleplaying. That's not a bad thing, even if you (or someone else) disagrees with it.
It's not a bad concept, but it's very difficult to make it actually useful. A much more useful mechanic would be something like "a spellcaster will recognize a spell on their list being cast" (so that Wizards will always recognize Wizard spells as they're being cast, even if by a Cleric, Warlocks will always recognize Warlock spells being cast, even if by a Sorcerer, etc.), or even "you can use your reaction to identify a spell being cast, using Arcana, and casting Counterspell can be part of the same reaction", so that a single spellcaster can actually use Counterspell without having to do it blindly.
Also, you're conflating "teamwork" with "roleplaying". They're two different things. Even so, this mechanic does not facilitate teamwork, it requires it. And not for any sort of interesting challenge, but for properly using a spell which doesn't really seem like it requires any additional people. It's a bad, unintuitive, clunky mechanic, which can render a perfectly good spell nearly useless in some common situations (imagine a stereotypical party, with a Fighter, a Monk, a Rogue, a Cleric, and a Wizard. The Wizard is the only one with a decent Arcana bonus, but also the only one with access to Counterspell. There is no situation in which the Wizard can use it without casting it blindly, without the slightest idea of which spell they're countering. That's not a good thing.)
Finally, let's try to keep straw man arguments out of this. I get how you're trying to shut me up by implicating I'm against roleplaying, but it's pretty obvious I've said nothing of the sort.
I think Intelligence is certainly under utilized in D&D. The fact that Investigation is keyed to Intelligence means that Intelligence is the Attribute used to figure out what things mean, how things work, and how things came to be. The issue with it being an RPG is that it's not fun when your character can't figure out what anything means because that means they miss out on plot, so DM's don't bother making many of those things into skill checks, and rightly so, because making the progression of even simple plots hinge on a successful dice roll is unfun when failure means a do nothing dead end. Of course, if the story progresses anyhow and there is an interesting (for good or ill) development either way, sure do ahead and make it a dice roll, but I think that's high level DM skills, to be able to make fun story to account for both success and failure.
The biggest issue regarding what you're describing is, I think, the fact that Intelligence is the toughest attribute to play differently, especially higher, than your own. Playing a character who's much stronger than you is easy. Same for dexterity, constitution, and even charisma (you might not know exactly how to act, but you can have a general idea, and let the dice do the rest). Wisdom... well, if it were used in a "real life" sense, it'd be tough, too... but in D&D it's mostly used for "general awareness", so it's used for things like Perception, tracking (Survival), and Insight. But intelligence... well, apart from the "knowledge" skills, the "figuring it out" part is tough to separate. If your character is more intelligent than the players, which is often the case when Wizards are involved, then they won't be acting properly, simply because the player won't understand the world like the character would. They'll make patently bad decisions that the character wouldn't. They'll miss connections their character would make. If the difference isn't that much, the DM can step in and just give the information to the player... but the DM might not be intelligent enough, either. We fudge some of that via Investigation rolls... the DM intentionally leaves out information that should be obvious, offering it on a successful roll, in effect letting the player make a connection much easier than the one the character would be able to do, as a means of simulating the character making a much more difficult connection. ("You investigate the letters, and find one mentioning the Baron and their recent visit to the victim's home.", which doesn't really require any intelligence at all to find, just putting in the work... but it simulates the character connecting seemingly disparate events to conclude that the Baron did, in fact, visit the victim's home.)
Playing a less intelligent character is also tough, although often for different reasons. A very low Int Barbarian's player may have to bite their tongue, or ask "out of character" the more intelligent characters' players to act in some way that is obvious to them (the player), but wouldn't be to their character (the low int barbarian). This is especially problematic if your DM likes puzzle encounters. Strictly speaking, any puzzle your DM can come up with should be trivial for a character with a 24 score in Intelligence to solve. Also, your 8 Intelligence barbarian shouldn't be able to solve puzzles that stump the 12 Intelligence Rogue. But it's up to the players to actually solve the puzzle, not the characters, which creates a disconnect, and devalues Intelligence as a character stat.
The only way I can think of right now to fix this problem is to remove Intelligence altogether as a character stat, and remove all skills that are actually based on Intelligence, or replace them with a bonus calculated from something else (be it a flat proficiency bonus, or a bonus based on your class, so that arcane spellcasters have a naturally higher Arcana bonus, etc.). All "removed" skills are replaced by actual player skill (the player makes connections between facts known by their characters). But that's not the game we're playing. =)
Int skills are very useful in the games my group plays. We have also definitely had moments where a player came up with something and then said, "yeah... my character is definitely not smart enough to have thought of that, so never mind." We try to make it matter, but I still agree that INT is one of the weakest stats.
The problem with the "secondary stats" in general (STR/INT/CHA as explained above), is that any given party only needs one person to be good at them and the rest can dump it. There is little to no benefit to having two party members who can expound upon the history of the region or decipher the arcane texts, whereas a high DEX or CON is beneficial to literally everyone due to HP, initiative, vital saving throws, etc.
I like the idea of INT providing extra proficiencies, but at the same time this would most heavily benefit wizard and artificer who probably need it the least.
And to add to the conversation about Investigation and player intelligence versus character intelligence, as a DM when I choose to run a mystery I am not just running an adventure with a lot of Investigation checks. I want to engage the players. I want them to think and reason and put the clues together and figure it out. Because figuring it out is what makes a mystery fun. Off-loading that onto characters is not only difficult-to-impossible to simulate, it also goes against the point of the adventure in the first place.
I mean there's also using the character with the highest Passive Investigation as the expository character. I think that's a decent way to streamline some of the simpler stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And to add to the conversation about Investigation and player intelligence versus character intelligence, as a DM when I choose to run a mystery I am not just running an adventure with a lot of Investigation checks. I want to engage the players. I want them to think and reason and put the clues together and figure it out. Because figuring it out is what makes a mystery fun. Off-loading that onto characters is not only difficult-to-impossible to simulate, it also goes against the point of the adventure in the first place.
Some deep immersion players will view that as metagaming. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it is one particular style of play, which might not be for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For non wizard/artificer characters, I see a lot that this stat is dumped for maxing more relevant stats. Int can be very interesting, I am a monk with high int that likes to investigate. It's depends on the dm, on the campaign, perhaps. Yet perhaps int gives less benefits than the others?
https://youtu.be/GKeNZrqswtQ
I LOVE playing high INT characters. A lot of my fun from RPGS comes from discovering the lore of the world the DM crafted. And since INT gives bonuses to all the knowledge skills, it really helps with that.
I really enjoy being able to ask "Would My character know about this?" to pretty much everything lol
Obligatory - the stats are as important as you make them out to be.
If the DM never makes people roll INT ability checks, then yes it will be unimportant to the campaign. Not many monsters have INT saving throw abilities so from a monster stand point is doesn't hold the same value as WIS. For RP - obviously each table is different, but a 6 INT PC is not going to be leading the strategy meeting before combat unless the table chooses to ignore the stats of PCs.
Sorry if it wasn't blatantly clear in my post but the comment on strategy has NOTHING to do with OOC talk. Many games I have been apart of the PCs tend to talk out combat strategy in game before they get the drop on someone. So low INT that PC is not talking much about positioning, flanking, and actually tactics and tactical words. Sure they can cover it with "well what if I just move to his back instead?" but the point still stands a low INT character is not going to be doing much intelligent talking IN GAME.
Didn't realize I would have to specify that since, we are in fact talking about the INT score of D&D, not the intelligence of the humans operating the system.
One house rule we used in our group was that you get extra skill/language/tool proficiencies based on your Int. You could pick one extra prof. for each point of int modifier.
I wouldn't say that Intelligence is an underpowered statistic. It's just that people who only concern themselves with combat and surprises don't value it at all.
Five skills key off of Intelligence, one of which is used detection and deduction. The others are for gathering information. None of these are bad to have, and a well-rounded one-shot or campaign will make use of them.
And then Xanathar's Guide to Everything gave them more uses. They have synergies with tool proficiencies. You can use Arcana (or perhaps Religion, if you're a divine spellcaster), as a reaction, to identify a spell being cast that you don't already know. Having a higher than average Intelligence can also lessen the time it takes to learn new languages or tool proficiencies, which also saves your character gold.
As much as I dislike the 3.5/Pathfinder system, I REALLY liked the skill rank mechanic and how you got points based on INT and class! I really miss how different characters felt in terms of skill proficiency.
TRUE TRUE!! Just because passing a knowledge check doesn't get you a mechanical benefit, doesn't mean its useless! My favorite character I've ever played was a high int character with proficiency in all the knowledge skills. His skills came up more often than ANY other party member and often led to us learning something about the current plot that greatly helped!
I've noticed a lot of things that people on these forums call "Underpowered" are usually only so from a combat standpoint (i.e. Sorcerers. But thats a different conversation lol)
There is this concept within the meta design of the game that divides stats into primary and secondary biased on saving throws. The primary saves are Dex, Con, and Wis. While the secondary are Str, Int, and Cha. Here is a breakdown of what I mean within spells and skills (excluding tool proficiencies)
Some of those skills are used much more often then others and will very between games heavily. Perception is probably one of the most used skills, as is Stealth, and probably insight. You also have to remember that Str and Dex have weapon attacks affiliated with them, Con has HP tied to it and Dex has Initiative and AC tied to it. There are also certain actions that require specific types of contested checks, usually Str athletics or Dex acrobatics.
Given all of that, if Int isn't a primary spell casting stat it has much less use to have then say, wisdom.
None of this taking into account the different abilities that monsters have which usually require a Str, Con, Dex or Wis save depending on what the effect is.
Purely mechanically in the game, Int is probably the most beneficial dump stats, especially if the game you are playing wont require many Archana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion checks.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
This is actually much less useful than it might seem. Using it as a Reaction only has an impact if we're talking combat. The major (maybe only?) reason to want to identify a spell as it's being cast is to determine whether you want to Counterspell it. Having used your reaction to identify it, you no longer have the ability to Counterspell it. If your DM allows free communication at any point during the round, then you could partner up two characters, one to identify the spell being cast, who then communicates the information to a second character who can cast Counterspell, and uses the information to decide, which means spending two Reactions to counter a spell.
You see, that doesn't feel right to me. You don't need to be intelligent to thoroughly search or look for an intruder. Just look at the intelligence of many police officers and security guards... (Note: this is intended as a joke)
To me, investigation is about reasoning, about putting clues together, linking that with memories about facts/lore/etc. Noticing that a painting didn't fit in with the style of the rest, figuring out the order to put symbols in a puzzle, working out the mechanical operation of a complex trap in order to allow it to be disarmed, remembering that the suspect wears a specific material and matching that to the scrap of material you have found. These are investigation, or at least intelligence-based, tasks. Looking for something, that isn't, unless they are hidden in a way which involves reasoning/memory/etc to figure out.
Yes, it is more of an RP stat. It's one of the less-used saves and has nothing to do with attack rolls, saves, or DC, except for those classes. But there are more skills based on it than any other stat. It really just depends how often your DM calls for those skill checks. If your campaign doesn't involve a lot of lore, you won't be using History much. If it doesn't involve a lot of wilderness travel, you might not use Nature much. Investigation is pretty generally useful for traps and secret doors, though, so I think you want at least one Velma in your party, even if your campaign doesn't involve Scooby-Dooing as a plot device.
OK, I can see that in some cases. It would very much depend on what/who was being searched for, though. Just generically, looking for a person (intruder or not) or "thoroughly searching" is more perception. Looking for a skilled thief, or searching a room with hidden compartments, investigation comes into play.
The merits of counterspell aside, the last thing anyone wants to do is spend it on a cantrip. Or worse, if it isn't even a spell at all.
If the DM allows for that kind of teamwork, then yeah, it's teamwork. The party is working together to solve a problem. That's fantastic. And if the spell succeeds the first time so the party can counter it on subsequent turns, then the baddie still gets to do something cool and the party is adapting to the circumstances.
It facilitates roleplaying. That's not a bad thing, even if you (or someone else) disagrees with it.
I think Intelligence is certainly under utilized in D&D. The fact that Investigation is keyed to Intelligence means that Intelligence is the Attribute used to figure out what things mean, how things work, and how things came to be. The issue with it being an RPG is that it's not fun when your character can't figure out what anything means because that means they miss out on plot, so DM's don't bother making many of those things into skill checks, and rightly so, because making the progression of even simple plots hinge on a successful dice roll is unfun when failure means a do nothing dead end. Of course, if the story progresses anyhow and there is an interesting (for good or ill) development either way, sure do ahead and make it a dice roll, but I think that's high level DM skills, to be able to make fun story to account for both success and failure.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It's not a bad concept, but it's very difficult to make it actually useful. A much more useful mechanic would be something like "a spellcaster will recognize a spell on their list being cast" (so that Wizards will always recognize Wizard spells as they're being cast, even if by a Cleric, Warlocks will always recognize Warlock spells being cast, even if by a Sorcerer, etc.), or even "you can use your reaction to identify a spell being cast, using Arcana, and casting Counterspell can be part of the same reaction", so that a single spellcaster can actually use Counterspell without having to do it blindly.
Also, you're conflating "teamwork" with "roleplaying". They're two different things. Even so, this mechanic does not facilitate teamwork, it requires it. And not for any sort of interesting challenge, but for properly using a spell which doesn't really seem like it requires any additional people. It's a bad, unintuitive, clunky mechanic, which can render a perfectly good spell nearly useless in some common situations (imagine a stereotypical party, with a Fighter, a Monk, a Rogue, a Cleric, and a Wizard. The Wizard is the only one with a decent Arcana bonus, but also the only one with access to Counterspell. There is no situation in which the Wizard can use it without casting it blindly, without the slightest idea of which spell they're countering. That's not a good thing.)
Finally, let's try to keep straw man arguments out of this. I get how you're trying to shut me up by implicating I'm against roleplaying, but it's pretty obvious I've said nothing of the sort.
The biggest issue regarding what you're describing is, I think, the fact that Intelligence is the toughest attribute to play differently, especially higher, than your own. Playing a character who's much stronger than you is easy. Same for dexterity, constitution, and even charisma (you might not know exactly how to act, but you can have a general idea, and let the dice do the rest). Wisdom... well, if it were used in a "real life" sense, it'd be tough, too... but in D&D it's mostly used for "general awareness", so it's used for things like Perception, tracking (Survival), and Insight. But intelligence... well, apart from the "knowledge" skills, the "figuring it out" part is tough to separate. If your character is more intelligent than the players, which is often the case when Wizards are involved, then they won't be acting properly, simply because the player won't understand the world like the character would. They'll make patently bad decisions that the character wouldn't. They'll miss connections their character would make. If the difference isn't that much, the DM can step in and just give the information to the player... but the DM might not be intelligent enough, either. We fudge some of that via Investigation rolls... the DM intentionally leaves out information that should be obvious, offering it on a successful roll, in effect letting the player make a connection much easier than the one the character would be able to do, as a means of simulating the character making a much more difficult connection. ("You investigate the letters, and find one mentioning the Baron and their recent visit to the victim's home.", which doesn't really require any intelligence at all to find, just putting in the work... but it simulates the character connecting seemingly disparate events to conclude that the Baron did, in fact, visit the victim's home.)
Playing a less intelligent character is also tough, although often for different reasons. A very low Int Barbarian's player may have to bite their tongue, or ask "out of character" the more intelligent characters' players to act in some way that is obvious to them (the player), but wouldn't be to their character (the low int barbarian). This is especially problematic if your DM likes puzzle encounters. Strictly speaking, any puzzle your DM can come up with should be trivial for a character with a 24 score in Intelligence to solve. Also, your 8 Intelligence barbarian shouldn't be able to solve puzzles that stump the 12 Intelligence Rogue. But it's up to the players to actually solve the puzzle, not the characters, which creates a disconnect, and devalues Intelligence as a character stat.
The only way I can think of right now to fix this problem is to remove Intelligence altogether as a character stat, and remove all skills that are actually based on Intelligence, or replace them with a bonus calculated from something else (be it a flat proficiency bonus, or a bonus based on your class, so that arcane spellcasters have a naturally higher Arcana bonus, etc.). All "removed" skills are replaced by actual player skill (the player makes connections between facts known by their characters). But that's not the game we're playing. =)
Int skills are very useful in the games my group plays. We have also definitely had moments where a player came up with something and then said, "yeah... my character is definitely not smart enough to have thought of that, so never mind." We try to make it matter, but I still agree that INT is one of the weakest stats.
The problem with the "secondary stats" in general (STR/INT/CHA as explained above), is that any given party only needs one person to be good at them and the rest can dump it. There is little to no benefit to having two party members who can expound upon the history of the region or decipher the arcane texts, whereas a high DEX or CON is beneficial to literally everyone due to HP, initiative, vital saving throws, etc.
I like the idea of INT providing extra proficiencies, but at the same time this would most heavily benefit wizard and artificer who probably need it the least.
And to add to the conversation about Investigation and player intelligence versus character intelligence, as a DM when I choose to run a mystery I am not just running an adventure with a lot of Investigation checks. I want to engage the players. I want them to think and reason and put the clues together and figure it out. Because figuring it out is what makes a mystery fun. Off-loading that onto characters is not only difficult-to-impossible to simulate, it also goes against the point of the adventure in the first place.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I mean there's also using the character with the highest Passive Investigation as the expository character. I think that's a decent way to streamline some of the simpler stuff.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Some deep immersion players will view that as metagaming. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it is one particular style of play, which might not be for everyone.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!