D&D 5E 5th edition monks

[Dausuul]

I think that Constitution is probably the most universally useful stat across classes, honestly. Even more so than Dexterity.

Yup. Characters who wear heavy armor can and do dump Dex; you take a hit to initiative, but otherwise you don't suffer much. (You weren't going to be sneaking around anyway.) But dumping Con is going to be brutal no matter who you are.

I guess maybe if you were an archery-specialized fighter, in a party with a couple of heavy-duty meat shields to keep the enemy away from you, you might be able to get away with dumping Con and relying on your robust d10 hit dice to compensate. Even then, it would be painful.

 

[mortwatcher]

If you don't want to have an 8 intelligence (say), then don't take an 8 intelligence.

that is my main problem with roleplaying intelligence
if you go under, that is ok, I can play someone a bit dumber than I am
the issue comes, how the heck do I play 18 int character, as an 11 int player - my character should have ideas I can't even think of

roleplaying mental stats is hard, that's why they are so easily dumped, hard to notice the difference most of the time

 

[generic]

that is my main problem with roleplaying intelligence
if you go under, that is ok, I can play someone a bit dumber than I am
the issue comes, how the heck do I play 18 int character, as an 11 int player - my character should have ideas I can't even think of

roleplaying mental stats is hard, that's why they are so easily dumped, hard to notice the difference most of the time

Never a problem for me, for the latter, as I am a genius of unsurpassed caliber, obviously.

 

[Warpiglet]

that is my main problem with roleplaying intelligence
if you go under, that is ok, I can play someone a bit dumber than I am
the issue comes, how the heck do I play 18 int character, as an 11 int player - my character should have ideas I can't even think of

roleplaying mental stats is hard, that's why they are so easily dumped, hard to notice the difference most of the time

I agree it is hard to play a higher intelligence to a point. However, I think the DM and the dice can help here.

I (player) don't recall the he names, the pattern or whatever. I might not be able to figure the puzzle out but the DM might call for a roll some of those times and my +4 bonus or whatever can come into play.

I think that would only follow player attempts to figure things out and only if it advances the story or makes things more fun.

Otherwise just 'act.' My brace fighter is obviously braver than me---but I can pretend and try to represent the behavior based on character choices

 

[Undrave]

So, a few things on this.

With the usual caveat that every table can run things as they want, I very much have to disagree with the last statement. AFAIK, while PCs are "exceptional individuals," this is represented in the game (and in all editions) by being ... well, exceptional. And you can't measure exceptional unless you have a baseline- in other words, what are the stats of other people/gods/heroes (early editions) or everything, including monsters (3e on). The game would cease to make any sense at all if the exact same numbers represented something completely different for PCs than they do for NPCs, as you can see if you think about in terms of anything else and rephrase it:

"Maybe we just overdramatize the impact of that 8 for hit points? I mean, PCs are usually exceptional individuals so maybe 8 hit points is actually average? Maybe 8 hit points represents something completely different?"

When PCs have a difference (for example, if you use death saves for PCs but not NPCs) it is spelled out mechanically. There is no mechanical difference in saves, etc. for NPCs and PCs for their abilities, so this isn't the case. The idea that PCs use the same scale, but should have better abilities, has been there since the beginning (see, generally, Gygax's comments about alternate methods of rolling PCs in the DMG and later in UA).

To sum up: no, PCs don't use a different scale. If there is a difference, it is that PCs have more "points" in the point buy.

In addition, the default array for a standard commoner (non-special PC) is 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. However, using point buy (which provides abilities that are, on average, slightly worse than 4d6k1, but without risk), you can generate, inter alia:
14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 OR
14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 OR
13, 13 , 13, 13, 13, 10

Now, since you're a special PC, even if you're just a regular ol' human, you can start with, inter alia:
14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11 (or something else)

Which means that a regular ol' human PC can easily start with one ability above average, and the other 5 abilities WELL ABOVE AVERAGE than the standard commoner.


Whew. All of that means that for a PC to take an 8 (always to get an advantage in something else) is to go below the average for a commoner. To not just be not-special, but, um, well below not-special.

So in a way, this is the bane of both Roleplaying and, um, just playing. Because it's a common feature/drawback of many games. People want to take advantage of a system that allows you to trade having a drawback in exchange for additional benefits, but don't actually want to suffer the drawback.

If you don't want to have an 8 intelligence (say), then don't take an 8 intelligence.

I'm not saying PCs should use a different scale (though I am a proponent of handwaving NPCs down to what matters instead of worrying about how I would stat them with PC rules), but rather that we re-contextualize the scale so that 8 is more the average.

Still, even if the average at every stat is 10, you don't answer my question: how much dumber than average 10 is someone with an 8 in INT? I don't think you have to role-play a complete moron to have an 8 INT. Just don't bother learning any of the NPCs and places names and it'll come naturally

 

[DND_Reborn]

roleplaying mental stats is hard, that's why they are so easily dumped, hard to notice the difference most of the time

As a DM, I allow my players with smarter, wiser, etc. characters to roll for a chance to do something or come up with an idea the player might not think of. This happens a lot really since most people I know who play tend to have average to good intelligence, but often not to the point of having a 16 or higher. Maybe a couple people I've played with over the years would have 16 or better, but not many. Lots of 12-15's though!

As @Warpiglet says, allowing the player to make the roll for the character, either granting a bonus or if the player rolls well, offer a hint to figure something out, etc.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean, I could play an 8 int PC as myself and I'd be doing just fine. My mama always said, "Life is like a box of gnomes."

My main issue is that tradeoff thing, which, TBH, pops up in almost any RPG system that allows you to take a disadvantage and exchange it for some other advantage. Because then people try to shrug off the disadvantage, because it's really just about min/maxing or charop instead of seeing the ability scores as a way to describe the character. Which also seems to pop up more with a point-buy system than with rolls.

I find the difficult thing is not giving ideas when I play a lower INT character, especially if I have an INT 8 for the character (I rarely do that, but it has happened a couple times over the years). Even average INT or 12-13 means I have to wait longer or contribute less. Sometimes, I'll actually roll a d20 and if I roll high enough, I'll take that as my character has "thought of something brilliant" and throw in my thoughts fully to help out.

By extension, the same can be said for playing lower WIS and CHA as well, depending on in what aspect you want the relative "weakness" to lie.

 

[Undrave]

I mean, I could play an 8 int PC as myself and I'd be doing just fine. My mama always said, "Life is like a box of gnomes."

My main issue is that tradeoff thing, which, TBH, pops up in almost any RPG system that allows you to take a disadvantage and exchange it for some other advantage. Because then people try to shrug off the disadvantage, because it's really just about min/maxing or charop instead of seeing the ability scores as a way to describe the character. Which also seems to pop up more with a point-buy system than with rolls.

I think it's just the problem of trying to balance a mechanical bonus (or penalty, like being a Fighter outside of battle) with 'good roleplaying'. Dumping INT (and Cha really) just doesn't have a big enough mechanical penalty.

Maybe if all six saves mattered it would feel like more of a weak point? Or if they had kept the consolidated 4e defences of FORT, REF and WILL, but made them by adding the two modifiers instead of just taking the strongest of the two? Tanking both DEX and INT, which both feed into Reflex would then be a bad idea.

Just spitballing here.

Point is, don't balance mechanics against role-play (or at least not strictly), it's never gonna be a strong enough balancing factor.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, a few things on this.

With the usual caveat that every table can run things as they want, I very much have to disagree with the last statement. AFAIK, while PCs are "exceptional individuals," this is represented in the game (and in all editions) by being ... well, exceptional. And you can't measure exceptional unless you have a baseline- in other words, what are the stats of other people/gods/heroes (early editions) or everything, including monsters (3e on). The game would cease to make any sense at all if the exact same numbers represented something completely different for PCs than they do for NPCs, as you can see if you think about in terms of anything else and rephrase it:

"Maybe we just overdramatize the impact of that 8 for hit points? I mean, PCs are usually exceptional individuals so maybe 8 hit points is actually average? Maybe 8 hit points represents something completely different?"

When PCs have a difference (for example, if you use death saves for PCs but not NPCs) it is spelled out mechanically. There is no mechanical difference in saves, etc. for NPCs and PCs for their abilities, so this isn't the case. The idea that PCs use the same scale, but should have better abilities, has been there since the beginning (see, generally, Gygax's comments about alternate methods of rolling PCs in the DMG and later in UA).

To sum up: no, PCs don't use a different scale. If there is a difference, it is that PCs have more "points" in the point buy.

In addition, the default array for a standard commoner (non-special PC) is 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. However, using point buy (which provides abilities that are, on average, slightly worse than 4d6k1, but without risk), you can generate, inter alia:
14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 OR
14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 OR
13, 13 , 13, 13, 13, 10

Now, since you're a special PC, even if you're just a regular ol' human, you can start with, inter alia:
14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11 (or something else)

Which means that a regular ol' human PC can easily start with one ability above average, and the other 5 abilities WELL ABOVE AVERAGE than the standard commoner.


Whew. All of that means that for a PC to take an 8 (always to get an advantage in something else) is to go below the average for a commoner. To not just be not-special, but, um, well below not-special.

So in a way, this is the bane of both Roleplaying and, um, just playing. Because it's a common feature/drawback of many games. People want to take advantage of a system that allows you to trade having a drawback in exchange for additional benefits, but don't actually want to suffer the drawback.

If you don't want to have an 8 intelligence (say), then don't take an 8 intelligence.

My counter argument with your conclusion would be to look at a 12 Int.

Would you not look askance at me if I played an Int 12 character as a hyper-intelligent person? Or even just, played up their Int to a noticeable degree? I mean, they’re still basically average. They aren’t at the exact average point, but they’re within the range of intelligence that we generally just think of as “normal person”. I know I’d never play that character as anything other than “high end of average”.

Surely 8 Int is also just...the low end of average. Not even enough difference to be noticeable under any circumstances other than detailed testing of intellectual capability. 8 Int is still someone who graduates high school without any particular trouble.

Maybe slightly more or less well spoken, maybe use that score to flavor the way in which a high Cha character is charming or unpleasant, maybe