Honestly I don't think the changes to the study action really changed all that much from the wotc expected use from the 2014 phb. But it attempt does clarify/quantify expectations where there might have been misconception.(however the may have created new ones)
Actions in 5e are the same in or out of combat. Ranger's favored terrain and travel rules show that if you want to search for threats you have to use an action (unless a ranger)
At the same time it was also an "exception based system". A dm or adventure can create longer time events. It takes 10 min to search this or 30 seconds actions to search this this. This finding this "free."
A dm decides what it takes to determine resistances (minus a fighter an ranger subclass). at my tables rangers with fe have reasonable justification for asking such things others might as well. It's all about the level of interaction at individual tables.
One dnd dosen't change these principles but the new setup may help things that were under valued become more appreciated.
Why do you guys think Intelligence skills are useless? Arcana is required to disarm magical traps, Investigation is required to identify traps. Nature and Arcana are required to identify what a monster is (DMs really should stop using official D&D art so that players can't metagame what every monster is), and any weakness/resistances it has - yes this requires an action but that's because sneaking up on a monster, investigating a previous attack by the monster, or researching the monster before heading out to fight it are supposed to be "a thing" that parties do. D&D isn't supposed to be a horror movies where random monsters just jump out at the party with no foreshadowing. History and Religion should be crucial to determining the enemy's plot and figuring out how to foil them, however DMs usually make this irrelevant because they want to keep the plot moving rather than forcing the party to stop and go find a historian or academic to ask what is going on.
Most skills aren't useful in combat (when was the last time you pickpocketed someone in the middle of a combat?), and aren't supposed to be useful in combat, because combat is just 1 of 3 pillars. Skills are crucial for the two other pillars.
If you're playing hack-and-slash D&D then sure intelligence is useless but so is Charisma and Wisdom, but I'd argue that isn't the only way to play D&D and probably isn't even the dominant way to play D&D.
Because none of those things come up often enough to be on par with something like +5 to hit and +5 to AC or even the skills associated with those attributes. I'm not taking people through the tomb of horrors, are there magical traps sure, but its not common. There are more physical traps than magical ones by far and there still aren't that many physical traps. Can they get monster stats sure. But its pretty rare the monster stats matter. Do i need to know a ogres stats, do you really make someone make a check to determine a fire mephit is resistant or immune to fire. Is it hard to figure the giant apes strength save is going to be its high save and int is probably its weakest. Most monsters it just does not matter, the next big group it may matter but it would be immediately apparent to everyone with or without a skill check, there is a pretty small % of monsters where it both matters and you wouldn't know just from looking at it.
And out of combat 9 times out of 10 its stuff that maybe if fun to know but not really useful, especially since you are balancing telling the story vs concealing it. Investigation is sort of useful but perception dwarfs it. But sure having both is great since investigate can fill in some gaps. And the biggest problem you bump into is skills like stealth, even slight of hand the player can make useful on their own. History, if there is nothing there then there nothing there. Not every enemy has some historical known background so you can find out hes really upset about orange futures. And even if you find that out how often does it change the plan of events past stop the bad guy. Maybe if its a serial killer story and you figure out his next kill will be 2 nights out near the water it will help with a search pattern or something. But are most stories designed like that, i kind of doubt it.
I do not think there is really a way to balance the knowledge skills like that. Int skills maybe like if they bring back crafting by enhancing the tool proficiency around them or have rituals require a skill check like 4e. And then open up rituals into some cool thing anyone can technically do that handle things you want in the world but not given to a class as a simple spell. And it can be fine if they don't have the skills balanced on the stats, con has like nothing skill wise. But con is a pretty rare dump stat. So if they don't want to improve the skills make int useful on its own. Extra skills, let it help on initiative, something.
I don't think anyone is saying there is no value at all in Intelligence or Knowledge skills. Just that they are heavily dependent on the DM, the campaign, and the plot. Some games use them a lot. Others not at all. Similar to travel and survival rules. And players can't see the obvious benefit as easily as they can for something like Dexterity or Stealth.
So it would be nice if there were some concrete benefits on top of the normal uses. Ones that a DM isn't going to handwave away, or a style of adventure isn't going to make effectively unnecessary. Keep all of the many uses that Knowledge skills already have. Just add some benefits that can be read as solid bonuses too.
Some examples from this thread and some of my own:
Extra skill proficiencies from high Int
Extra languages from high Int
Exotic languages unlocked with Knowledge skills
Int bonus to initiative
Advantage on social skills after a successful knowledge roll
Study action roll for monster stats
Study action to find the 'weak point' of any monster and get advantage on yours or an ally next attack
Reduce the cost and time for crafting certain items
Why do you guys think Intelligence skills are useless? Arcana is required to disarm magical traps, Investigation is required to identify traps. Nature and Arcana are required to identify what a monster is (DMs really should stop using official D&D art so that players can't metagame what every monster is), and any weakness/resistances it has - yes this requires an action but that's because sneaking up on a monster, investigating a previous attack by the monster, or researching the monster before heading out to fight it are supposed to be "a thing" that parties do. D&D isn't supposed to be a horror movies where random monsters just jump out at the party with no foreshadowing. History and Religion should be crucial to determining the enemy's plot and figuring out how to foil them, however DMs usually make this irrelevant because they want to keep the plot moving rather than forcing the party to stop and go find a historian or academic to ask what is going on.
Most skills aren't useful in combat (when was the last time you pickpocketed someone in the middle of a combat?), and aren't supposed to be useful in combat, because combat is just 1 of 3 pillars. Skills are crucial for the two other pillars.
If you're playing hack-and-slash D&D then sure intelligence is useless but so is Charisma and Wisdom, but I'd argue that isn't the only way to play D&D and probably isn't even the dominant way to play D&D.
The skills are not useless to the character; however, players regularly substitute their own abilities for those of their character. The simplest example is a party faced with solving a riddle. Some players want to solve the riddle themselves rather than their character. However, would players choose the character with the highest intelligence to use their skills to solve the riddle? Would a DM say the riddle has a DC 25 and a character with Arcana skill can attempt to solve it? A table might find their game fun and exciting solving the riddle as players.
Players often can get in the way of their own character abilities, especially if the character is better than the player. When a player in D&D understands they have one ability, skill, or power - making decisions for their character - they will build and play a character valuing the skills.
I don't think anyone is saying there is no value at all in Intelligence or Knowledge skills. Just that they are heavily dependent on the DM, the campaign, and the plot. Some games use them a lot. Others not at all. Similar to travel and survival rules. And players can't see the obvious benefit as easily as they can for something like Dexterity or Stealth.
So it would be nice if there were some concrete benefits on top of the normal uses. Ones that a DM isn't going to handwave away, or a style of adventure isn't going to make effectively unnecessary. Keep all of the many uses that Knowledge skills already have. Just add some benefits that can be read as solid bonuses too.
Some examples from this thread and some of my own:
Extra skill proficiencies from high Int
Extra languages from high Int
Exotic languages unlocked with Knowledge skills
Int bonus to initiative
Advantage on social skills after a successful knowledge roll
Study action roll for monster stats
Study action to find the 'weak point' of any monster and get advantage on yours or an ally next attack
Reduce the cost and time for crafting certain items
You're forgetting the other half of the equation: Is lower Intelligence something that can negatively affect how PCs function beyond making knowledge skills harder (and removing multiclass options for Wizard or Artificer), or is that just a thing reserved for NPCs or extreme cases like feeblemind?
Do you mean with these examples? Some benefits in the game just don't have penalties in the opposite direction. But if we were to treat these bonuses like we do Dexterity or Constitution, then sure, I could see easy ways to have penalties for low Int too. (These are all just examples though, not anything that any of us have really thought a lot about.)
Extra skill proficiencies from high Int - you probably can't take away proficiencies without causing dissatisfaction. But you could do something like reduce the number of skills that every class gets by 1, and consider that the base for low Int. Then give a bonus proficiency at Int 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20. Or at Int 10, 13, 16, and 19. Or whatever works best.
Extra languages from high Int - you start with a lot of languages in 1DnD. You can change that the same as above for skills. A low Int gets you 1. An Int of 10 gets you whatever you want to be average. And higher Int grants some more.
Exotic languages unlocked with Knowledge skills -This one is easy. If you don't have high Int, you don't get access to those languages (unless it's part of your species or background possibly.)
Int bonus to initiative- Works just like Dexterity. High Int gives a positive modifier. Low Int gives a negative.
Advantage on social skills after a successful knowledge roll - since it's based on a skill check, low Int affects it like any skill penalty
Study action roll for monster stats -same as above, it's a skill check.
Study action to find the 'weak point' of any monster and get advantage on yours or an ally next attack -same as above
Reduce the cost and time for crafting certain items - if you need this one to have a penalty to low Int, then just have it increase the time and cost.
So yeah I don't think it's real hard to make some uses for Intelligence that go both ways. But we're just throwing out ideas. Any of them would take work to get just right.
I don't think anyone is saying there is no value at all in Intelligence or Knowledge skills. Just that they are heavily dependent on the DM, the campaign, and the plot. Some games use them a lot. Others not at all. Similar to travel and survival rules. And players can't see the obvious benefit as easily as they can for something like Dexterity or Stealth.
So it would be nice if there were some concrete benefits on top of the normal uses. Ones that a DM isn't going to handwave away, or a style of adventure isn't going to make effectively unnecessary. Keep all of the many uses that Knowledge skills already have. Just add some benefits that can be read as solid bonuses too.
Some examples from this thread and some of my own:
Extra skill proficiencies from high Int
Extra languages from high Int
Exotic languages unlocked with Knowledge skills
Int bonus to initiative
Advantage on social skills after a successful knowledge roll
Study action roll for monster stats
Study action to find the 'weak point' of any monster and get advantage on yours or an ally next attack
Reduce the cost and time for crafting certain items
You're forgetting the other half of the equation: Is lower Intelligence something that can negatively affect how PCs function beyond making knowledge skills harder (and removing multiclass options for Wizard or Artificer), or is that just a thing reserved for NPCs or extreme cases like feeblemind?
Do you mean with these examples? Some benefits in the game just don't have penalties in the opposite direction. But if we were to treat these bonuses like we do Dexterity or Constitution, then sure, I could see easy ways to have penalties for low Int too. (These are all just examples though, not anything that any of us have really thought a lot about.)
Extra skill proficiencies from high Int - you probably can't take away proficiencies without causing dissatisfaction. But you could do something like reduce the number of skills that every class gets by 1, and consider that the base for low Int. Then give a bonus proficiency at Int 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20. Or at Int 10, 13, 16, and 19. Or whatever works best.
Extra languages from high Int - you start with a lot of languages in 1DnD. You can change that the same as above for skills. A low Int gets you 1. An Int of 10 gets you whatever you want to be average. And higher Int grants some more.
Exotic languages unlocked with Knowledge skills -This one is easy. If you don't have high Int, you don't get access to those languages (unless it's part of your species or background possibly.)
Int bonus to initiative- Works just like Dexterity. High Int gives a positive modifier. Low Int gives a negative.
Advantage on social skills after a successful knowledge roll - since it's based on a skill check, low Int affects it like any skill penalty
Study action roll for monster stats -same as above, it's a skill check.
Study action to find the 'weak point' of any monster and get advantage on yours or an ally next attack -same as above
Reduce the cost and time for crafting certain items - if you need this one to have a penalty to low Int, then just have it increase the time and cost.
So yeah I don't think it's real hard to make some uses for Intelligence that go both ways. But we're just throwing out ideas. Any of them would take work to get just right.
My takeaway is that Intelligence really should have had a rule set all its own, because it's practically the foundation for being a functioning sapient being. But instead it gets basically nothing in the way of rules at all, and so (unless someone knows of a rule that exists for this) your character can have like 3 INT and still be able to walk, talk, wield a blade, and cast spells like it's no big deal.
That's roleplaying. If you're playing a 3 INT character like a 10 INT character, then you should just play it differently. I don't think there need to be a whole lot of mechanical disadvantages (besides being illiterate at 6 INT, but that's a minor thing).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
My takeaway is that Intelligence really should have had a rule set all its own, because it's practically the foundation for being a functioning sapient being. But instead it gets basically nothing in the way of rules at all, and so (unless someone knows of a rule that exists for this) your character can have like 3 INT and still be able to walk, talk, wield a blade, and cast spells like it's no big deal.
Honestly, I don't have much of a problem with that. Intelligence isn't the measure of all mental functions. It's specifically just reasoning and memory. There are plenty of highly functioning people that are lacking one of the other, or even both. Even if you wanted to say it is a measurement of IQ, that itself is a reflection of only a small part of mental faculties.
Intelligence is just a game mechanic and an abstract concept. Even an animal with an Int 3 can walk, communicate with its kind, and fight with no problem. A character can cast a wizard spell from a book, but not very well.
If we take the game mechanic at it's face value, it's memory and reasoning. You can apply that to more things without breaking the game or the intended effect of the ability score. There is room for expansion without taking away from the abstract concept.
I don't think anyone is saying there is no value at all in Intelligence or Knowledge skills. Just that they are heavily dependent on the DM, the campaign, and the plot. Some games use them a lot. Others not at all. Similar to travel and survival rules. And players can't see the obvious benefit as easily as they can for something like Dexterity or Stealth.
So it would be nice if there were some concrete benefits on top of the normal uses. Ones that a DM isn't going to handwave away, or a style of adventure isn't going to make effectively unnecessary. Keep all of the many uses that Knowledge skills already have. Just add some benefits that can be read as solid bonuses too.
Some examples from this thread and some of my own:
Extra skill proficiencies from high Int
Extra languages from high Int
Exotic languages unlocked with Knowledge skills
Int bonus to initiative
Advantage on social skills after a successful knowledge roll
Study action roll for monster stats
Study action to find the 'weak point' of any monster and get advantage on yours or an ally next attack
Reduce the cost and time for crafting certain items
Our groups have been doing this forever.
But I really like this and might try to persuade everyone to switch.
Or just use both.
Edit: I think switching from Dex to Int for Initiative is not a terrible idea, but mostly to knock Dex down a peg because it is just powerful a stat.
Why do you guys think Intelligence skills are useless? Arcana is required to disarm magical traps, Investigation is required to identify traps. Nature and Arcana are required to identify what a monster is (DMs really should stop using official D&D art so that players can't metagame what every monster is), and any weakness/resistances it has - yes this requires an action but that's because sneaking up on a monster, investigating a previous attack by the monster, or researching the monster before heading out to fight it are supposed to be "a thing" that parties do. D&D isn't supposed to be a horror movies where random monsters just jump out at the party with no foreshadowing. History and Religion should be crucial to determining the enemy's plot and figuring out how to foil them, however DMs usually make this irrelevant because they want to keep the plot moving rather than forcing the party to stop and go find a historian or academic to ask what is going on.
Most skills aren't useful in combat (when was the last time you pickpocketed someone in the middle of a combat?), and aren't supposed to be useful in combat, because combat is just 1 of 3 pillars. Skills are crucial for the two other pillars.
If you're playing hack-and-slash D&D then sure intelligence is useless but so is Charisma and Wisdom, but I'd argue that isn't the only way to play D&D and probably isn't even the dominant way to play D&D.
The skills are not useless to the character; however, players regularly substitute their own abilities for those of their character. The simplest example is a party faced with solving a riddle. Some players want to solve the riddle themselves rather than their character. However, would players choose the character with the highest intelligence to use their skills to solve the riddle? Would a DM say the riddle has a DC 25 and a character with Arcana skill can attempt to solve it? A table might find their game fun and exciting solving the riddle as players.
Players often can get in the way of their own character abilities, especially if the character is better than the player. When a player in D&D understands they have one ability, skill, or power - making decisions for their character - they will build and play a character valuing the skills.
That's the case for most non-physical skills though, not just INT. Players routinely choose by themselves whether they believe or don't believe and NPC regardless of their character's Insight, DMs routinely reward RPing social interactions with low DCs, Adv/Disadv or no Charisma checks required, and players metagame knowledge of lore / monsters or solving puzzles themselves. TBH I much prefer fighting homebrew monsters as a result since it means I don't have to try to avoid metagaming because I happen to be good a remembering monster stats from when I'm the DM. But if the players want a game that has more out-of-combat focus to it there are millions of ways to use knowledge skills outside of combat -> from designing new siege engines for a city to defend against a dragon, to researching the legal system of a country in order to frame a bad guy for a crime and have them thrown in prison, to identifying a toxic fungus growing in the basement of a tavern that is causing food poisoning.
Part of where they get the Study Action in combat is from things like this:
KEEN MIND
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13+
Repeatable: No
You have trained to rapidly recall or discover vital details, granting you the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20. Lore Knowledge. Choose one of the following Skills: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion. If you lack Proficiency in the chosen Skill, you gain Proficiency in it, and if you have Proficiency in it, you gain Expertise in it.
Quick Study. You can take the Study Action as a Bonus Action
As you can see, making a Bonus action is clearly show that this is combat action, otherwise feature has no meaning.
Edit: I have no idea why it formatted it that way.
Thank you! I knew I forgot about one of them! I could only remember the Thief one. Yeah, this really does drive home the feeling that all of these should be normally completed in just seconds. And that there should be some combat benefit of doing it in battle.
Yeah, I hate it.
Edit: Hate maybe too strong a word, but I don't like it. You could always perform a skill check as an action, but no one really did. Setting it up in the rules as an "Action" with a capitol A creates the idea that it should have some impact on the course of the fight. However, that is just setting up the player to waste an Action or puts the DM on the spot to make up something worth while.
As bad as I think those are being defined as an action I still think jump is the worst. Like in combat I think most players will quickly realize its a sub par action the vast majority of times. There will be niche situations with hidden enemies/traps/illusions or enemies with weird immunities that somehow disguise the fact that the fireball did not burn them. But jump burning your action to jump more than 5 feet, holy crap that is a melee nerf. I'd feel like a bully DM setting up a fight with enemies across a ravine that they can jump.
I’ve actually been rereading the Jump action rules lately and I think it’s oly supposed to be for big leaps greater than 5 feet, and I suspect that anything up to 5 feet will still be part of regular movement. That’s actually a buff for most low Strength characters out there who can currently only jump a few feet much of the time.
Maybe it's just my personal viewpoint, but I wouldn't call someone who is not very good at solving problems or having trouble remembering things "highly functioning". Lacking in either of those two things, at least in our modern society, limits your options or requires serious workarounds.
I just don't think that's true at all. Because it all depends on the scale you are using. If a 10 represents your average person, a 3 is far below average on those specific things. But that doesn't mean they are so diabled by the stat that they can't perform everyday functions. A Strength score of 10 means you can carry 150 lbs without penalty. A Strength score of 3 means you can carry 45 lbs. I would say that includes a lot of highly functional people in the world. The Intelligence scale should be considered to cover a similar range.
Intelligence is just a game mechanic abstract of only one part of your mental capacity. Plenty of people aren't great problem solvers, or don't recall their history lessons well. It doesn't make them dumb or incapable of functioning in every day life. They can certainly walk, talk, and hold down a job without any assistance. If they lived in the Forgotten Realms, they could swing a sword, or pick a pocket, or pray for healing. They wouldn't be the best at memorizing Wizard spells from a book, but that's exactly what the stat is for.
I just don't think that's true at all. Because it all depends on the scale you are using. If a 10 represents your average person, a 3 is far below average on those specific things. But that doesn't mean they are so diabled by the stat that they can't perform everyday functions. A Strength score of 10 means you can carry 150 lbs without penalty. A Strength score of 3 means you can carry 45 lbs. I would say that includes a lot of highly functional people in the world. The Intelligence scale should be considered to cover a similar range.
Except that is not what I am seeing in the bestiary, or at least the official one. It's unfortunate that I can't sort monsters on D&D Beyond by ability score, but I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of NPCs or monsters with an INT score that low are not the ones who would hold down a job the way we think of holding down a job.
Also the Strength score actually has concrete rules for what it represents. The Intelligence score (or any of the mental scores for that matter) does not, so I don't think it's really accurate to use the same scaling. The only thing I can go off of to gauge how different INT scores affect a creature's behaviour in the world is the bestiary, and the trend I tend to see is that INT scores below 6 are on the stat block of a creature that has few or no languages, and is described as being more "animalistic" in its behaviour.
Also wheeling back to "I just don't think that is true at all", it depends quite a lot on how charitable your society is. In the one I live in, the educational system and the system of employment are not particularly kind to you if you habitually forget things or can't problem solve. That is what I mean by "limiting your options". Maybe back when life was much simpler, you could get away with it more, but in modern times those skills (or lack thereof) are much more impactful.
I think it is fair to use the same scale as Strength. (Though it is also a good case for Intelligence needing more concrete rules too.) Yes, most animals are going to naturally score low on their ability to solve riddles and remember their History lessons. But that doesn't mean that all people who aren't good problem solvers think like animals. It's just one part of your mental capacity.
It's like how a Horse and a Commoner both have a Dex of 10. But that doesn't mean a Commoner is bad at Sleight of Hand because it has hooves. These are abstract stats that represent certain mechanics.
The reason it's fair to compare their scales is because we do all the time in the game. With ability score modifiers to checks. A Strength of 10 has no modifier to Strength rolls. A Strength of 20 has +5, which equates to a 25% increase in your chance to succeed. A Strength of 3 has a -4 to rolls, which equates to failing only 20% more often. The distance between the worst person in the world and the best is a difference of 9 points, or 45%. So with the specific mental traits that Intelligence is meant to abstract, the difference between a 3 and a 20 is equivalent to the difference between someone who can carry 45 lbs and someone who can carry 300 lbs. Both extremes are very normal, functioning people. One has a big edge in certain feats, but it doesn't mean the other is incapable of living a full normal everyday life.
So yes, someone who doesn't problem solve well isn't as good as the average person. But only by 20%. They are by no means horribly challenged. Of course a Horse isn't good at problem solving. But that doesn't mean the person thinks like a horse. There are so many other aspects to their actual mental ability.
That's the case for most non-physical skills though, not just INT. Players routinely choose by themselves whether they believe or don't believe and NPC regardless of their character's Insight, DMs routinely reward RPing social interactions with low DCs, Adv/Disadv or no Charisma checks required, and players metagame knowledge of lore / monsters or solving puzzles themselves.
There are a lot of comments along these lines. I wanted to add my agreement to them, and this one just looked like a good place to start. XD
That really is the biggest issue with mental stats in a TTRPG. It's impossible to completely divorce from it. These are social games, played in our minds. It's just how they work.
We could imagine the opposite. A game where all of the physical things you want the character to do, you have to do yourself first. And where mental/social challenges are just rolls against target numbers with clear penalties for failure. Everyone is swinging swords and climbing walls. And conversations with NPCs just have SP (social points) to wear down by hitting targets with beanbags. Players that are naturally athletic will perform better in general. And after knocking a monster off a platform, there aren't going to be many ways the DM can take it back from you if your character has a low Strength. It's a convoluted analogy, and I wouldn't advise going too deep into it, haha.
LARPs are a different way to roleplay. Maybe some people here have experience with them. Two characters in a LARP can have the same damage when they attack, but the one with the more athletic player will do better in a fight every time. But in most LARPs, your character's mental and social traits are yours alone. It's up to you to remember the lore, or bargain with the barkeep. There are some exceptions of course, games where you basically just play the tabletop version standing up and everything is still a skill check with a random element. But many require you to bring your own attributes to the game more than DnD.
So for tabletops, we are all sitting around and telling stories. Players are going to metagame no matter how much they try not to. Because you just can't know exactly what your character would know without some ridiculous form of AI or something. You have to use some of your own experience.
Players act out social situations before the Persuasion rolls are made. They consult their notes before History rolls are made. They try to evaluate how they feel about NPCs before Insight rolls are made. DMs often adjust the rolls based on the performance of the player.
You could start every scene with a roll, but it's not going to be very satisfying. People like to solve riddles themselves. It's not very exciting to say "The Sphinx asks you a riddle. Roll to know the answer." And it's very rare for a DM to try to take back the success that a player got naturally. You don't often see DMs say "You guessed correctly, but your character might not, so roll instead." If a player says they want to go talk to Brom, the baker they met last year, a DM probably isn't going to make them roll to see if the character remembers Brom first. Usually the rolls are made as backup after the player has failed. Or they are just used to determine the degree of success or failure.
I've seen players tell each other "You can't do that, your character isn't smart enough." But there is no way they could know what an imagined character does and does not know. And it's definitely not fun to play a game that way. And high scores are even more difficult. Many people want to play characters more charming or intelligent or wise than themselves. In these cases, they depend on the rolls to save them. They need the hard bonus to let them live their fantasy.
Everyone will have a slightly different experience from table to table. But some things about the nature of the game make mental traits much harder to rule than things like attack bonuses. I think all of the mental skills are very useful and make for enriching games. They are just very dependant on players, DMs, and the genre of adventure you are playing. So I think it would be good to add a few more concrete bonuses to what high scores mean. Similar to those that physical stats have. So no matter what game you are playing, and no matter how good you are at those things yourself, you can see a clear benefit from raising these stats and skills.
Part of where they get the Study Action in combat is from things like this:
KEEN MIND
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13+
Repeatable: No
You have trained to rapidly recall or discover vital details, granting you the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20. Lore Knowledge. Choose one of the following Skills: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion. If you lack Proficiency in the chosen Skill, you gain Proficiency in it, and if you have Proficiency in it, you gain Expertise in it.
Quick Study. You can take the Study Action as a Bonus Action
As you can see, making a Bonus action is clearly show that this is combat action, otherwise feature has no meaning.
Edit: I have no idea why it formatted it that way.
Thank you! I knew I forgot about one of them! I could only remember the Thief one. Yeah, this really does drive home the feeling that all of these should be normally completed in just seconds. And that there should be some combat benefit of doing it in battle.
Yeah, I hate it.
Edit: Hate maybe too strong a word, but I don't like it. You could always perform a skill check as an action, but no one really did. Setting it up in the rules as an "Action" with a capitol A creates the idea that it should have some impact on the course of the fight. However, that is just setting up the player to waste an Action or puts the DM on the spot to make up something worth while.
As bad as I think those are being defined as an action I still think jump is the worst. Like in combat I think most players will quickly realize its a sub par action the vast majority of times. There will be niche situations with hidden enemies/traps/illusions or enemies with weird immunities that somehow disguise the fact that the fireball did not burn them. But jump burning your action to jump more than 5 feet, holy crap that is a melee nerf. I'd feel like a bully DM setting up a fight with enemies across a ravine that they can jump.
I’ve actually been rereading the Jump action rules lately and I think it’s oly supposed to be for big leaps greater than 5 feet, and I suspect that anything up to 5 feet will still be part of regular movement. That’s actually a buff for most low Strength characters out there who can currently only jump a few feet much of the time.
Yes, but the people who need to jump to close in and fight are not the ones with that low of a strength. In 5e youd need a 5 or less strength for a 5 ft jump to impeded you in any way.
Frankly, I'm all for renaming Intelligence into Knowledge. And probably Charisma into Communication, and Wisdom into Awareness. That would clarify a lot. Mental stats, the way they're worded, imply a heavy impact on roleplay, not to mention that players that are naturally intelligent or charismatic play their characters up to their own ability. A really smart and knowledgeable person playing a barbarian will come up with better plans, tactics, and solutions to problems than a 20 Int wizard player who just spams fireball for shits and giggles. So I think it might be wise to detach these aspects from the game mechanics altogether. Alignments did get essentially removed as mechanics that were supposed to define roleplay and dictate what your character could or would do.
Part of where they get the Study Action in combat is from things like this:
KEEN MIND
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13+
Repeatable: No
You have trained to rapidly recall or discover vital details, granting you the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20. Lore Knowledge. Choose one of the following Skills: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion. If you lack Proficiency in the chosen Skill, you gain Proficiency in it, and if you have Proficiency in it, you gain Expertise in it.
Quick Study. You can take the Study Action as a Bonus Action
As you can see, making a Bonus action is clearly show that this is combat action, otherwise feature has no meaning.
Edit: I have no idea why it formatted it that way.
Thank you! I knew I forgot about one of them! I could only remember the Thief one. Yeah, this really does drive home the feeling that all of these should be normally completed in just seconds. And that there should be some combat benefit of doing it in battle.
Yeah, I hate it.
Edit: Hate maybe too strong a word, but I don't like it. You could always perform a skill check as an action, but no one really did. Setting it up in the rules as an "Action" with a capitol A creates the idea that it should have some impact on the course of the fight. However, that is just setting up the player to waste an Action or puts the DM on the spot to make up something worth while.
As bad as I think those are being defined as an action I still think jump is the worst. Like in combat I think most players will quickly realize its a sub par action the vast majority of times. There will be niche situations with hidden enemies/traps/illusions or enemies with weird immunities that somehow disguise the fact that the fireball did not burn them. But jump burning your action to jump more than 5 feet, holy crap that is a melee nerf. I'd feel like a bully DM setting up a fight with enemies across a ravine that they can jump.
I’ve actually been rereading the Jump action rules lately and I think it’s oly supposed to be for big leaps greater than 5 feet, and I suspect that anything up to 5 feet will still be part of regular movement. That’s actually a buff for most low Strength characters out there who can currently only jump a few feet much of the time.
Yes, but the people who need to jump to close in and fight are not the ones with that low of a strength. In 5e youd need a 5 or less strength for a 5 ft jump to impeded you in any way.
Horizontally, but not vertically. A character with a Str of 10, like a Dex build fighter, can only jump 3 ft vertically with a running start, or a foot-and-a-half from a standstill.
Frankly, I'm all for renaming Intelligence into Knowledge. And probably Charisma into Communication, and Wisdom into Awareness. That would clarify a lot. Mental stats, the way they're worded, imply a heavy impact on roleplay, not to mention that players that are naturally intelligent or charismatic play their characters up to their own ability. A really smart and knowledgeable person playing a barbarian will come up with better plans, tactics, and solutions to problems than a 20 Int wizard player who just spams fireball for shits and giggles. So I think it might be wise to detach these aspects from the game mechanics altogether. Alignments did get essentially removed as mechanics that were supposed to define roleplay and dictate what your character could or would do.
It would have the added benefit of people find some level of issue with intelligence and creatures with some cultural implications they draw.
Part of where they get the Study Action in combat is from things like this:
KEEN MIND
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13+
Repeatable: No
You have trained to rapidly recall or discover vital details, granting you the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20. Lore Knowledge. Choose one of the following Skills: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion. If you lack Proficiency in the chosen Skill, you gain Proficiency in it, and if you have Proficiency in it, you gain Expertise in it.
Quick Study. You can take the Study Action as a Bonus Action
As you can see, making a Bonus action is clearly show that this is combat action, otherwise feature has no meaning.
Edit: I have no idea why it formatted it that way.
Thank you! I knew I forgot about one of them! I could only remember the Thief one. Yeah, this really does drive home the feeling that all of these should be normally completed in just seconds. And that there should be some combat benefit of doing it in battle.
Yeah, I hate it.
Edit: Hate maybe too strong a word, but I don't like it. You could always perform a skill check as an action, but no one really did. Setting it up in the rules as an "Action" with a capitol A creates the idea that it should have some impact on the course of the fight. However, that is just setting up the player to waste an Action or puts the DM on the spot to make up something worth while.
As bad as I think those are being defined as an action I still think jump is the worst. Like in combat I think most players will quickly realize its a sub par action the vast majority of times. There will be niche situations with hidden enemies/traps/illusions or enemies with weird immunities that somehow disguise the fact that the fireball did not burn them. But jump burning your action to jump more than 5 feet, holy crap that is a melee nerf. I'd feel like a bully DM setting up a fight with enemies across a ravine that they can jump.
I’ve actually been rereading the Jump action rules lately and I think it’s oly supposed to be for big leaps greater than 5 feet, and I suspect that anything up to 5 feet will still be part of regular movement. That’s actually a buff for most low Strength characters out there who can currently only jump a few feet much of the time.
Yes, but the people who need to jump to close in and fight are not the ones with that low of a strength. In 5e youd need a 5 or less strength for a 5 ft jump to impeded you in any way.
Horizontally, but not vertically. A character with a Str of 10, like a Dex build fighter, can only jump 3 ft vertically with a running start, or a foot-and-a-half from a standstill.
You are right I had forgotten the vertical part. I guess that is a bit of a help. Kind of weird making a 5 ft vertical the default for the world.
Part of where they get the Study Action in combat is from things like this:
KEEN MIND
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13+
Repeatable: No
You have trained to rapidly recall or discover vital details, granting you the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20. Lore Knowledge. Choose one of the following Skills: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion. If you lack Proficiency in the chosen Skill, you gain Proficiency in it, and if you have Proficiency in it, you gain Expertise in it.
Quick Study. You can take the Study Action as a Bonus Action
As you can see, making a Bonus action is clearly show that this is combat action, otherwise feature has no meaning.
Edit: I have no idea why it formatted it that way.
Thank you! I knew I forgot about one of them! I could only remember the Thief one. Yeah, this really does drive home the feeling that all of these should be normally completed in just seconds. And that there should be some combat benefit of doing it in battle.
Yeah, I hate it.
Edit: Hate maybe too strong a word, but I don't like it. You could always perform a skill check as an action, but no one really did. Setting it up in the rules as an "Action" with a capitol A creates the idea that it should have some impact on the course of the fight. However, that is just setting up the player to waste an Action or puts the DM on the spot to make up something worth while.
As bad as I think those are being defined as an action I still think jump is the worst. Like in combat I think most players will quickly realize its a sub par action the vast majority of times. There will be niche situations with hidden enemies/traps/illusions or enemies with weird immunities that somehow disguise the fact that the fireball did not burn them. But jump burning your action to jump more than 5 feet, holy crap that is a melee nerf. I'd feel like a bully DM setting up a fight with enemies across a ravine that they can jump.
I’ve actually been rereading the Jump action rules lately and I think it’s oly supposed to be for big leaps greater than 5 feet, and I suspect that anything up to 5 feet will still be part of regular movement. That’s actually a buff for most low Strength characters out there who can currently only jump a few feet much of the time.
Yes, but the people who need to jump to close in and fight are not the ones with that low of a strength. In 5e youd need a 5 or less strength for a 5 ft jump to impeded you in any way.
Horizontally, but not vertically. A character with a Str of 10, like a Dex build fighter, can only jump 3 ft vertically with a running start, or a foot-and-a-half from a standstill.
You are right I had forgotten the vertical part. I guess that is a bit of a help. Kind of weird making a 5 ft vertical the default for the world.
Honestly I don't think the changes to the study action really changed all that much from the wotc expected use from the 2014 phb. But it attempt does clarify/quantify expectations where there might have been misconception.(however the may have created new ones)
Actions in 5e are the same in or out of combat. Ranger's favored terrain and travel rules show that if you want to search for threats you have to use an action (unless a ranger)
At the same time it was also an "exception based system". A dm or adventure can create longer time events. It takes 10 min to search this or 30 seconds actions to search this this. This finding this "free."
A dm decides what it takes to determine resistances (minus a fighter an ranger subclass). at my tables rangers with fe have reasonable justification for asking such things others might as well. It's all about the level of interaction at individual tables.
One dnd dosen't change these principles but the new setup may help things that were under valued become more appreciated.
Because none of those things come up often enough to be on par with something like +5 to hit and +5 to AC or even the skills associated with those attributes. I'm not taking people through the tomb of horrors, are there magical traps sure, but its not common. There are more physical traps than magical ones by far and there still aren't that many physical traps. Can they get monster stats sure. But its pretty rare the monster stats matter. Do i need to know a ogres stats, do you really make someone make a check to determine a fire mephit is resistant or immune to fire. Is it hard to figure the giant apes strength save is going to be its high save and int is probably its weakest. Most monsters it just does not matter, the next big group it may matter but it would be immediately apparent to everyone with or without a skill check, there is a pretty small % of monsters where it both matters and you wouldn't know just from looking at it.
And out of combat 9 times out of 10 its stuff that maybe if fun to know but not really useful, especially since you are balancing telling the story vs concealing it. Investigation is sort of useful but perception dwarfs it. But sure having both is great since investigate can fill in some gaps. And the biggest problem you bump into is skills like stealth, even slight of hand the player can make useful on their own. History, if there is nothing there then there nothing there. Not every enemy has some historical known background so you can find out hes really upset about orange futures. And even if you find that out how often does it change the plan of events past stop the bad guy. Maybe if its a serial killer story and you figure out his next kill will be 2 nights out near the water it will help with a search pattern or something. But are most stories designed like that, i kind of doubt it.
I do not think there is really a way to balance the knowledge skills like that. Int skills maybe like if they bring back crafting by enhancing the tool proficiency around them or have rituals require a skill check like 4e. And then open up rituals into some cool thing anyone can technically do that handle things you want in the world but not given to a class as a simple spell. And it can be fine if they don't have the skills balanced on the stats, con has like nothing skill wise. But con is a pretty rare dump stat. So if they don't want to improve the skills make int useful on its own. Extra skills, let it help on initiative, something.
I don't think anyone is saying there is no value at all in Intelligence or Knowledge skills. Just that they are heavily dependent on the DM, the campaign, and the plot. Some games use them a lot. Others not at all. Similar to travel and survival rules. And players can't see the obvious benefit as easily as they can for something like Dexterity or Stealth.
So it would be nice if there were some concrete benefits on top of the normal uses. Ones that a DM isn't going to handwave away, or a style of adventure isn't going to make effectively unnecessary. Keep all of the many uses that Knowledge skills already have. Just add some benefits that can be read as solid bonuses too.
Some examples from this thread and some of my own:
The skills are not useless to the character; however, players regularly substitute their own abilities for those of their character. The simplest example is a party faced with solving a riddle. Some players want to solve the riddle themselves rather than their character. However, would players choose the character with the highest intelligence to use their skills to solve the riddle? Would a DM say the riddle has a DC 25 and a character with Arcana skill can attempt to solve it? A table might find their game fun and exciting solving the riddle as players.
Players often can get in the way of their own character abilities, especially if the character is better than the player. When a player in D&D understands they have one ability, skill, or power - making decisions for their character - they will build and play a character valuing the skills.
Do you mean with these examples? Some benefits in the game just don't have penalties in the opposite direction. But if we were to treat these bonuses like we do Dexterity or Constitution, then sure, I could see easy ways to have penalties for low Int too. (These are all just examples though, not anything that any of us have really thought a lot about.)
Extra skill proficiencies from high Int - you probably can't take away proficiencies without causing dissatisfaction. But you could do something like reduce the number of skills that every class gets by 1, and consider that the base for low Int. Then give a bonus proficiency at Int 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20. Or at Int 10, 13, 16, and 19. Or whatever works best.
Extra languages from high Int - you start with a lot of languages in 1DnD. You can change that the same as above for skills. A low Int gets you 1. An Int of 10 gets you whatever you want to be average. And higher Int grants some more.
Exotic languages unlocked with Knowledge skills - This one is easy. If you don't have high Int, you don't get access to those languages (unless it's part of your species or background possibly.)
Int bonus to initiative - Works just like Dexterity. High Int gives a positive modifier. Low Int gives a negative.
Advantage on social skills after a successful knowledge roll - since it's based on a skill check, low Int affects it like any skill penalty
Study action roll for monster stats - same as above, it's a skill check.
Study action to find the 'weak point' of any monster and get advantage on yours or an ally next attack - same as above
Reduce the cost and time for crafting certain items - if you need this one to have a penalty to low Int, then just have it increase the time and cost.
So yeah I don't think it's real hard to make some uses for Intelligence that go both ways. But we're just throwing out ideas. Any of them would take work to get just right.
That's roleplaying. If you're playing a 3 INT character like a 10 INT character, then you should just play it differently. I don't think there need to be a whole lot of mechanical disadvantages (besides being illiterate at 6 INT, but that's a minor thing).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Honestly, I don't have much of a problem with that. Intelligence isn't the measure of all mental functions. It's specifically just reasoning and memory. There are plenty of highly functioning people that are lacking one of the other, or even both. Even if you wanted to say it is a measurement of IQ, that itself is a reflection of only a small part of mental faculties.
Intelligence is just a game mechanic and an abstract concept. Even an animal with an Int 3 can walk, communicate with its kind, and fight with no problem. A character can cast a wizard spell from a book, but not very well.
If we take the game mechanic at it's face value, it's memory and reasoning. You can apply that to more things without breaking the game or the intended effect of the ability score. There is room for expansion without taking away from the abstract concept.
Our groups have been doing this forever.
But I really like this and might try to persuade everyone to switch.
Or just use both.
Edit: I think switching from Dex to Int for Initiative is not a terrible idea, but mostly to knock Dex down a peg because it is just powerful a stat.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That's the case for most non-physical skills though, not just INT. Players routinely choose by themselves whether they believe or don't believe and NPC regardless of their character's Insight, DMs routinely reward RPing social interactions with low DCs, Adv/Disadv or no Charisma checks required, and players metagame knowledge of lore / monsters or solving puzzles themselves. TBH I much prefer fighting homebrew monsters as a result since it means I don't have to try to avoid metagaming because I happen to be good a remembering monster stats from when I'm the DM. But if the players want a game that has more out-of-combat focus to it there are millions of ways to use knowledge skills outside of combat -> from designing new siege engines for a city to defend against a dragon, to researching the legal system of a country in order to frame a bad guy for a crime and have them thrown in prison, to identifying a toxic fungus growing in the basement of a tavern that is causing food poisoning.
I’ve actually been rereading the Jump action rules lately and I think it’s oly supposed to be for big leaps greater than 5 feet, and I suspect that anything up to 5 feet will still be part of regular movement. That’s actually a buff for most low Strength characters out there who can currently only jump a few feet much of the time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I just don't think that's true at all. Because it all depends on the scale you are using. If a 10 represents your average person, a 3 is far below average on those specific things. But that doesn't mean they are so diabled by the stat that they can't perform everyday functions. A Strength score of 10 means you can carry 150 lbs without penalty. A Strength score of 3 means you can carry 45 lbs. I would say that includes a lot of highly functional people in the world. The Intelligence scale should be considered to cover a similar range.
Intelligence is just a game mechanic abstract of only one part of your mental capacity. Plenty of people aren't great problem solvers, or don't recall their history lessons well. It doesn't make them dumb or incapable of functioning in every day life. They can certainly walk, talk, and hold down a job without any assistance. If they lived in the Forgotten Realms, they could swing a sword, or pick a pocket, or pray for healing. They wouldn't be the best at memorizing Wizard spells from a book, but that's exactly what the stat is for.
I think it is fair to use the same scale as Strength. (Though it is also a good case for Intelligence needing more concrete rules too.) Yes, most animals are going to naturally score low on their ability to solve riddles and remember their History lessons. But that doesn't mean that all people who aren't good problem solvers think like animals. It's just one part of your mental capacity.
It's like how a Horse and a Commoner both have a Dex of 10. But that doesn't mean a Commoner is bad at Sleight of Hand because it has hooves. These are abstract stats that represent certain mechanics.
The reason it's fair to compare their scales is because we do all the time in the game. With ability score modifiers to checks. A Strength of 10 has no modifier to Strength rolls. A Strength of 20 has +5, which equates to a 25% increase in your chance to succeed. A Strength of 3 has a -4 to rolls, which equates to failing only 20% more often. The distance between the worst person in the world and the best is a difference of 9 points, or 45%. So with the specific mental traits that Intelligence is meant to abstract, the difference between a 3 and a 20 is equivalent to the difference between someone who can carry 45 lbs and someone who can carry 300 lbs. Both extremes are very normal, functioning people. One has a big edge in certain feats, but it doesn't mean the other is incapable of living a full normal everyday life.
So yes, someone who doesn't problem solve well isn't as good as the average person. But only by 20%. They are by no means horribly challenged. Of course a Horse isn't good at problem solving. But that doesn't mean the person thinks like a horse. There are so many other aspects to their actual mental ability.
There are a lot of comments along these lines. I wanted to add my agreement to them, and this one just looked like a good place to start. XD
That really is the biggest issue with mental stats in a TTRPG. It's impossible to completely divorce from it. These are social games, played in our minds. It's just how they work.
We could imagine the opposite. A game where all of the physical things you want the character to do, you have to do yourself first. And where mental/social challenges are just rolls against target numbers with clear penalties for failure. Everyone is swinging swords and climbing walls. And conversations with NPCs just have SP (social points) to wear down by hitting targets with beanbags. Players that are naturally athletic will perform better in general. And after knocking a monster off a platform, there aren't going to be many ways the DM can take it back from you if your character has a low Strength. It's a convoluted analogy, and I wouldn't advise going too deep into it, haha.
LARPs are a different way to roleplay. Maybe some people here have experience with them. Two characters in a LARP can have the same damage when they attack, but the one with the more athletic player will do better in a fight every time. But in most LARPs, your character's mental and social traits are yours alone. It's up to you to remember the lore, or bargain with the barkeep. There are some exceptions of course, games where you basically just play the tabletop version standing up and everything is still a skill check with a random element. But many require you to bring your own attributes to the game more than DnD.
So for tabletops, we are all sitting around and telling stories. Players are going to metagame no matter how much they try not to. Because you just can't know exactly what your character would know without some ridiculous form of AI or something. You have to use some of your own experience.
Players act out social situations before the Persuasion rolls are made. They consult their notes before History rolls are made. They try to evaluate how they feel about NPCs before Insight rolls are made. DMs often adjust the rolls based on the performance of the player.
You could start every scene with a roll, but it's not going to be very satisfying. People like to solve riddles themselves. It's not very exciting to say "The Sphinx asks you a riddle. Roll to know the answer." And it's very rare for a DM to try to take back the success that a player got naturally. You don't often see DMs say "You guessed correctly, but your character might not, so roll instead." If a player says they want to go talk to Brom, the baker they met last year, a DM probably isn't going to make them roll to see if the character remembers Brom first. Usually the rolls are made as backup after the player has failed. Or they are just used to determine the degree of success or failure.
I've seen players tell each other "You can't do that, your character isn't smart enough." But there is no way they could know what an imagined character does and does not know. And it's definitely not fun to play a game that way. And high scores are even more difficult. Many people want to play characters more charming or intelligent or wise than themselves. In these cases, they depend on the rolls to save them. They need the hard bonus to let them live their fantasy.
Everyone will have a slightly different experience from table to table. But some things about the nature of the game make mental traits much harder to rule than things like attack bonuses. I think all of the mental skills are very useful and make for enriching games. They are just very dependant on players, DMs, and the genre of adventure you are playing. So I think it would be good to add a few more concrete bonuses to what high scores mean. Similar to those that physical stats have. So no matter what game you are playing, and no matter how good you are at those things yourself, you can see a clear benefit from raising these stats and skills.
Yes, but the people who need to jump to close in and fight are not the ones with that low of a strength. In 5e youd need a 5 or less strength for a 5 ft jump to impeded you in any way.
Frankly, I'm all for renaming Intelligence into Knowledge. And probably Charisma into Communication, and Wisdom into Awareness. That would clarify a lot. Mental stats, the way they're worded, imply a heavy impact on roleplay, not to mention that players that are naturally intelligent or charismatic play their characters up to their own ability. A really smart and knowledgeable person playing a barbarian will come up with better plans, tactics, and solutions to problems than a 20 Int wizard player who just spams fireball for shits and giggles. So I think it might be wise to detach these aspects from the game mechanics altogether. Alignments did get essentially removed as mechanics that were supposed to define roleplay and dictate what your character could or would do.
Horizontally, but not vertically. A character with a Str of 10, like a Dex build fighter, can only jump 3 ft vertically with a running start, or a foot-and-a-half from a standstill.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It would have the added benefit of people find some level of issue with intelligence and creatures with some cultural implications they draw.
You are right I had forgotten the vertical part. I guess that is a bit of a help. Kind of weird making a 5 ft vertical the default for the world.
🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A world of Fantasy Basketball, maybe? :)