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

[dave2008]

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).

And here is a similar example of what I am talking about. You responded to elf crusher, but you didn't answer the important part of the question. The part that hurts your argument you ignored. Elfcrusher said:

"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? "

You never addressed the important part, the mechanism for applying the "rule" or the mechanical consequence for not doing so. If a description is a rule, their needs to be a mechanical consequence. It similar to saying orcs are green. not the the grey color depicted in the MM. It has no mechanical consequence. Gray orcs a not a game rule, it is simply a game description.

You responded, and clearly you were happy with that response, but you didn't really answer the question.

 

[dave2008]

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.

PS, I forgot to thank for providing your viewpoint on the "rules" in the book. Not one agree with, but it makes understanding your viewpoint easier. As a follow up, how is it clear the encounter builder is a "guideline," which I agree with by-the-way, and not a rule?

 

[iserith]

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.

At least we now know the basis for your preference which appears to be an objection to certain players wanting to play "special snowflakes," whatever that means. You still haven't shown why anyone "should" portray Int 5 a particular way outside of you just preferring that they do. You're welcome to your preferences and your table rules, of course. I just don't share them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

At least we now know the basis for your preference which appears to be an objection to certain players wanting to play "special snowflakes," whatever that means. You still haven't shown why anyone "should" portray Int 5 a particular way outside of you just preferring that they do. You're welcome to your preferences and your table rules, of course. I just don't share them.

Yup. I'm not really interested in arguments against playstyles that are based on assumptions about the motivations of the players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And here is a similar example of what I am talking about. You responded to elf crusher, but you didn't answer the important part of the question. The part that hurts your argument you ignored. Elfcrusher said:

"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? "

You never addressed the important part, the mechanism for applying the "rule" or the mechanical consequence for not doing so. If a description is a rule, their needs to be a mechanical consequence. It similar to saying orcs are green. not the the grey color depicted in the MM. It has no mechanical consequence. Gray orcs a not a game rule, it is simply a game description.

You responded, and clearly you were happy with that response, but you didn't really answer the question.

I was sure he was going to answer that the mechanical consequence is that you don't get to play at his table.

 

[Cadence]

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.


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.

In the old bell-curve 3d6 thinking, wouldn't a 5 be an "IQ" in the low to mid 70s and less than two standard deviations down (what used to be classified anyway as "borderline" - a "slow learner", but not "disabled"). As has been noted, in game terms that's only a -3 penatly on rolls - which would feel close to right for me in a game that let one take 10 or take 20 (or used 3d6 instead of d20 for rolls).

It feels to me like the Gorilla int is a bit high in 5e (PF gave them a 2).

Finally, while a 5 is only -3 vs. the average human, they are -6 vs. a 16. That feels like appropriately a lot.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Gorilla has the mental capacity about on par with a four-year-old human. I don't know how that ranks on the IQ scale. But if they could speak we probably would be pretty amazed by their intelligence. We humans tend to think the non-human animals are dumber than they actually are as they cannot properly communicate their thoughts to us.

In any case, I very much want the ability scores to mean something, something at least vaguely consistent even, so I really find these sort of bizarre attempts to redefine them super jarring. But if people have fun doing that, then go ahead. It definitely wouldn't fly in my game though.

 

[Voranzovin]

All that people have succeeded in doing in this thread is proving that Sherlock Holmes isn't a case of "High INT, low WIS" as people often suggest, but rather a case of "High INT, above-average WIS, and dump-stat CHA".

I'm being exceedingly pedantic now...but if you can't argue about the stats of fictional characters on an RPG forum, when can you?

If we're trying to represent the Holmes from the books, I don't see how he could possibly be dump-stat CHA. He's charismatic enough to have Watson frequently commenting that the stage lost a great performer when he went into detective work, lies fluently to all kinds of fairly perceptive people, and is able to pretend to be other people so well that Watson can't see through his disguises. He's incredibly personable and charming when we wants to be--he just usually can't be bothered.

To build a Dnd Holmes, you'd need not just high INT, WIS, and CHA, but also high marks in all the physical stats too. He's an amateur boxer who can lay a man out with a single punch, can un-bend a bent iron poker, and can scale a near-sheer cliff face. He's the one who didn't lose his balance and fall into the Reichenbach Falls. He goes for days without eating, has a significant drug habit, and is none the worse for wear. His weaknesses--arrogance, prejudice, egotism--are all narrative weaknesses that aren't representable by a number on a character sheet.

He is, in other words, not a Dnd character.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In any case, I very much want the ability scores to mean something, something at least vaguely consistent even, so I really find these sort of bizarre attempts to redefine them super jarring. But if people have fun doing that, then go ahead. It definitely wouldn't fly in my game though.

See, that's totally reasonable and valid. I get that.

What I don't get is the insistence from some folks that somehow the PHB requires people to interpret it that way.

There are clearly logical inconsistencies in the rules. According the rules a player with 6 Int is 10% worse than average at intelligence related tasks. But an Ape has 6 Int and apes aren't realistically only 10% worse than average humans at intelligence tasks. And if you assume that a 6 Int is, by definition, as dumb as an ape, you run into problems with statistical distributions no matter what dice method you use: basically every city would be teeming with morons.

For me the only solution is to treat the ability score as nothing other than a dice modifier, and everything beyond that is roleplaying. Thus a human with a 6 is roleplayed as slow-witted (or constantly distracted, or whatever else explains the modifier) and an Ape is roleplayed as....an ape.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You never addressed the important part, the mechanism for applying the "rule" or the mechanical consequence for not doing so. If a description is a rule, there needs to be a mechanical consequence.

That's because rules don't matter beyond the extent that anyone involved is concerned with following them. If you apply a rule incorrectly, then you get the wrong answer. If you use the wrong definition of Dexterity, then it generates the wrong description of the scene where that Dexterity is applied. That is the mechanical consequence.

Why would anyone care if you get the wrong description of the scene? For the same reason they would care if you get the wrong outcome of an attack, or deal the wrong amount of damage. Because it's wrong, and because the whole point of having rules is to get the right answer; where the right answer is defined as the one generated from the rules of play.

If you don't want to follow any rules, and you just want to improv a story with your friends, then that's also something you can do. But it has no bearing on any game, which has established rules for determining what happens.