D&D 5E Weird Interpretations for High/Low Ability Scores

[dave2008]

Wow, you really are rude, narrow minded, and ill informed. Good luck to you.

Ya, @Saelorn can be a hard nut to crack. I've seen he/she completely refuse to respond to a post that prove him/her wrong (like multiple times). I've never seen him/her admit they are or even could be wrong or misunderstand or that something as more the one "logical" answer. He/she is simply right and you have to live with that.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

You are factually incorrect. The definition of Dexterity is as much a rule as the math governing attack rolls, and I'm not going to waste my time talking to anyone who can't understand that.

Just a point of clarity, I never said I use a different definition for dexterity. You seemed to assume that, but I didn’t say that.

it is also a fact that i can and did play the game 100%RAW without having read the definition in the PHB.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Just curious, how do you personally decided what is a "rule" or just a "guideline" or simply "descriptive text?"

Everything in the book is a rule, unless it's presented as a guideline, or contradictory to something else in the book (in which case it's up for debate). D&D 5E is especially prone to contradictions, but is pretty good about delineating between rules and guidelines. For example, the encounter guidelines are clearly presented as such, and all of the language in that section supports it; while the descriptions of races and classes are presented as facts about the world.

Ya, @Saelorn can be a hard nut to crack. I've seen he/she completely refuse to respond to a post that prove him/her wrong (like multiple times). I've never seen him/her admit they are or even could be wrong or misunderstand or that something as more the one "logical" answer. He/she is simply right and you have to live with that.

I'll freely admit when something is open to interpretation, which is why I'm so resolute when it comes to something like this which is so extremely clear-cut. Claiming that "words don't mean what they actually mean," is on par with "meta-gaming is actually good," in terms of proposals that are so absurd as to not warrant discussion.

I'm here for serious discussion about the RPG hobby; not to feed trolls. If someone insists on repeatedly wasting my time with absurd proposals, then I'm going to exercise the Ignore function. It's unfortunate that this might come across like I'm refusing to respond to a "post that proves me wrong"; but if they were the type of people to post logical arguments, then I probably wouldn't have Ignored them in the first place.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Everything in the book is a rule, unless it's presented as a guideline, or contradictory to something else in the book (in which case it's up for debate). D&D 5E is especially prone to contradictions, but is pretty good about delineating between rules and guidelines. For example, the encounter guidelines are clearly presented as such, and all of the language in that section supports it; while the descriptions of races and classes are presented as facts about the world.

I'll freely admit when something is open to interpretation, which is why I'm so resolute when it comes to something like this which is so extremely clear-cut. Claiming that "words don't mean what they actually mean," is on par with "meta-gaming is actually good," in terms of proposals that are so absurd as to not warrant discussion.

I'm here for serious discussion about the RPG hobby; not to feed trolls. If someone insists on repeatedly wasting my time with absurd proposals, then I'm going to exercise the Ignore function. It's unfortunate that this might come across like I'm refusing to respond to a "post that proves me wrong"; but if they were the type of people to post logical arguments, then I probably wouldn't have Ignored them in the first place.

How exactly do you define ability score descriptions...or really any descriptions...with "rules".

I can read the rule for, say, making attack roles, and know how to adjudicate it. It gives you the exact steps to follow at the table.

But if you're calling the description of Dexterity a "rule" then there needs to be some mechanism for applying the rule at the table. What exactly is the mechanical consequence of somebody narrating their characters actions as a clumsy but lucky Mr. Magoo character?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How exactly do you define ability score descriptions...or really any descriptions...with "rules".

I can read the rule for, say, making attack roles, and know how to adjudicate it. It gives you the exact steps to follow at the table.

But if you're calling the description of Dexterity a "rule" then there needs to be some mechanism for applying the rule at the table. What exactly is the mechanical consequence of somebody narrating their characters actions as a clumsy but lucky Mr. Magoo character?

The game contains a lot of rules for determining what happens. If you want to hit someone with a sword, there's a whole procedure where you calculate your Strength modifier (and some other numbers) and add it to a d20 roll, comparing the result to the outcome of another formula for determining their Armor Class; and if the first number is at least as high as the second number, then that means you hit. That's the rule. That's the process which is used to determine the outcome. If you use some other procedure for determining whether you hit, then you're breaking the rule (however much anybody cares about that sort of thing).

The simplest mathematical function is the identity function. f(x) = x. That's the procedure for determining what Dexterity is. The function for determining what Dexterity is, is that it's agility and so on (as written in the book). That's the rule. That's the process which is used to determine the outcome. If you use some other procedure for determining what Dexterity is, then you're breaking the rule (in the exact same way as if you used a different process for determining the outcome of an attack).

 

[Bawylie]

The game contains a lot of rules for determining what happens. If you want to hit someone with a sword, there's a whole procedure where you calculate your Strength modifier (and some other numbers) and add it to a d20 roll, comparing the result to the outcome of another formula for determining their Armor Class; and if the first number is at least as high as the second number, then that means you hit. That's the rule. That's the process which is used to determine the outcome. If you use some other procedure for determining whether you hit, then you're breaking the rule (however much anybody cares about that sort of thing).

The simplest mathematical function is the identity function. f(x) = x. That's the procedure for determining what Dexterity is. The function for determining what Dexterity is, is that it's agility and so on (as written in the book). That's the rule. That's the process which is used to determine the outcome. If you use some other procedure for determining what Dexterity is, then you're breaking the rule (in the exact same way as if you used a different process for determining the outcome of an attack).

I don’t think they’re breaking the rule. It’s more like malicious compliance. Dexterity, in this instance, is unchanged functionally, but merely appears lucky. Like a jar jar binks bumbling around but exactly the right way and scoring kills off it.

It’s goofing. And goofing isn’t breaking the rules. The game engine remains intact. How it looks in-universe is an area open to interpretation. A dexterous Jackie Chan is radically different than a dexterous Fred Astaire. Since that presentation is open to interpretation, goofing is fair game too.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Orangs all have better memories than Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have a better intuitive grasp of physics.

The Observant feat has the odd side effect, that one's Passive scores are often better then your active scores. Umbran's Artificer is probably a better investigator when they are not giving something their full attention.

A 20th level character with 20 INT and the Investigation skill has a +11 base bonus to Investigation checks.

A 20th level character with a 5 INT and Expertise in Investigation has a +9 base bonus to Investigation. The same bonus as someone with 16 INT and training in a skill.
This character is not achieving DC 30 results without further help, but they are certainly not hapless.

So from a mechanical standpoint, a low ability score does not equate to automatic failures.
A character built from the Default Stat Array, with 8 INT, that has at least 1 level as a Cleric of Knowledge..(assume Arcana Expertise), and 1 level of Ranger with Favored Enemy: Fiends...is just fine acting as a Fiend Sage.

Low INT doesn't have to mean stupidity, or low general reasoning. It certainly can represent a person with high general reasoning, but a lack of impulse control, or an inability to focus, or sit doing the same repetitive activity.

 

[Todd Roybark]

The relevant rule, from the Basic Rules document, is as follows: "Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance." If you interpret the high-Dexterity of your character to mean that he's actually just very lucky, then that's a violation of the rule, which defines Dexterity as agility, reflexes, and balance.

Politely, I completely disagree.

A blind man able to walk on levitating steel girders, without the awareness that he has left the ground clearly has excellent agility, reflexes, and balance.

There is no "Luck" statistic. Describing Mr. Magoo as "lucky" is a colloquialism, that explains away Mr. Magoo's lack of Intention when he performs his dexterous feats.

Human excellence, especially in matters athletic take place at a mental state that is beyond intentional thought, thus we have concepts like Wu-Wei, being "centered", or "being in the zone".

By the time you think "oh crap, I better parry that rapier", you already have at least 3 inches of steel in your thoracic cavity, which is a fatal wound.

Mr. Magoo in game terms could easily be a blind monk. Mr. Magoo the character, has had no training, and certainly does not think he is a monk. Mr. Magoo just thinks he is lucky.

 

[dave2008]

First, I want to be clear that I was not talking about this bizarre exchange about ability scores.

I'll freely admit when something is open to interpretation, which is why I'm so resolute when it comes to something like this which is so extremely clear-cut. Claiming that "words don't mean what they actually mean," is on par with "meta-gaming is actually good," in terms of proposals that are so absurd as to not warrant discussion.

When someone presents a logical interpretation that is completely valid and factual but doesn't agree with your viewpoint, from what i have seen, you just ignore it. You act as if the argument was never made and never address it. Now, do you do it all the time? No idea, I'm not stalking you or anything.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You have some work to do to show that the gorilla will "routinely" outsmart the PC in a way that affects play meaningfully, particularly as it's unlikely (but not impossible) that a gorilla will feature quite often in this character's adventures. It's just not a worthwhile consideration and doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It's instead to do with your apparent preference as to how a player should portray a particular ability score. You're welcome to your preferences and your table rules, of course. I just don't share them.

A PC with INT 5 is literally dumber than gorilla. I'm not sure how else you can spin that. It doesn't matter if the gorilla being smarter would "affect play" or not, you're RPing someone who is dumber than a gorilla.

Now, that might be because they're some kind of idiot-savant, but if you're portraying them as absolutely normal, or even brilliant, that's not just a "preference" or "table rule", that's ludicrous.

And it's exactly what the thread title is about - some people do sometimes take totally ludicrous and unreasonable approaches to character stats, usually, in my personal experience, because they essentially want their character be the most special snowflake possible, often using some bizarre mechanical angle, but can't stand to have that snowflake marred by the indignity (oh the indignity!) of actually being weak/rude/stupid/incompetent/clumsy/etc.

I'm not completely unsympathetic. I've felt the urge myself. But if you pick INT 5, you should RP INT 5, not INT 10, let alone INT 20. They might be more "special" than "stupid", but they're not going to be Sherlock Holmes, who is a peculiarly cerebral character. Wanting INT 5 to be Sherlock Holmes is like wanting STR 5 to be Conan the Barbarian (Arnie-style), maybe because you did a DEX build and dumped STR hard, but still want the visual image of the musclebound hulk.

Low INT doesn't have to mean stupidity, or low general reasoning. It certainly can represent a person with high general reasoning, but a lack of impulse control, or an inability to focus, or sit doing the same repetitive activity.

I don't think this is supportable, and you offer no evidence or examples to support it.

A lack of impulse control is clearly nothing to do with intelligence in D&D, period. Nor is "sit and do repetitive tasks" (which has never related to INT in any edition of D&D. These two sound very much like you're quoting from a source about not thinking kids who can't do those things are stupid, which is nice but irrelevant. Inability to focus would impact some situations where the INT stat is used, but not others.

I mean, as someone who has ADHD (and yes my dad did make the AD&D/ADHD joke at one point!), I have all the above traits, but I see no reason why that would mean a low INT in D&D terms, because D&D INT checks (including skills) aren't really about those things - not even really focus (I'm extremely good at finding things, for example, despite having these traits - which I'm pretty sure would mean a good Investigation check in D&D terms). If anything, I feel like those traits might penalize WIS, not INT. I know I'm easily distracted, and in D&D terms, that probably means worse Perception, and lack of impulse control would tie in well with failing WIS saves and so on.

I think thus, it would be fair to say that someone could have a low WIS because of those traits, even whilst being quite circumspect about social relationships and so on, and having sensible ideas about life.

But the only ways I'm seeing INT 5 as not just all-round bad at thinking if they're not good at thinking, but a massive memory box, or some other kind of idiot-savant.

EDIT - I've seen an interesting double-standard re: stats since I was a teenager, note. People want to be able to dump mental stats without the consequences of dumping them. Very few people will dump STR and try and portray a big strong dude, but the number of people who will dump CHA into the floor and then try to play Westley, or worse, basically Kenneth Branagh's Henry the Fifth is staggering. And yes, people who dump WIS and then want to play someone who is wise in all ways. And let's not even start on the staggering number of INT 10 geniuses out there. But you want to say you're agile, and you took DEX 10? People aren't going to let it go.

It's a pretty weird double-standard and not really present in a lot of other RPGs, I note. You don't get Vampire characters putting 2 dots in INT and then playing like they're Xanatos, typically.