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

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I often play "special snowflakes", so this is simply not true, and I think you know perfectly well what that means, faux-naivete is so boring. It was described earlier in this thread without using the term (possibly by you?), being characters who play hard against type, or rely on very unusual mechanical setups.

My objection is that there has to be some basic consistency to what mental stats mean, just as there is basic consistency as to what physical stats mean, or you have an unhelpful and rather unfair double-standard.

As for showing why it should be portrayed as specific way, D&D is extremely consistent in that animals and beings who are, in colloquial terms "not very bright" have lower INT scores. I can see little deviation from this. I don't see anything that's "thick" but has 18 INT, or anything or anyone who is portrayed as brilliant, but has 8 INT. This isn't some game where the stats are totally abstract - there are RPGs like that, where you might have a "Mind" stat or the like, which might mean a lot of different things. The most abstract stat is probably WIS (which I think was a mistake, design-wise, but too late now).

So you combine those two factors I've just mentioned - firstly, that physical stats are fairly consistent and measurable and so on, which means people investing in those are tied to somewhat specific visions of characters, and secondly that D&D itself is largely consistent in how it portrays INT relative to what a "man in the street" would assume was meant by intelligence.

You've made no argument as to why a PC whose player has chosen them to have an INT score which would put them among "smart wildlife" and creatures people would be impressed managed to work a peanut dispenser or do very basic counting-based math, and among similarly-minded monsters in D&D, should in fact be some sort of well-spoken and brilliant fellow.

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.

Well definitely. Book Holmes is all-round superior in capabilities, and merely misanthropic. But if we look at most modern portrayals of Holmes, whether they're the Benedict Cumberbatch take or Dr House or whatever, there seems to be centering around a more "anti-social" character, who is brilliant, but struggles with dealing with other people.

My personal feeling is that this is a bit more plausible for a "real-world"-ish scenario than the original Holmes, but YMMV. Certainly the RDJ Holmes was more in line with book Holmes though, in that he was charming (it's hard for RDJ to be otherwise, of course!).

These far more accurately model a Mr. Magoo type character. He isn't walking on that girder while blind due to a high dex. He's just getting very lucky.

With Magoo I think analysing it in terms of the characteristics of the character is misguided, because ultimately he's in a story, and in D&D terms, the DM would be constantly using fiat and fudging rolls to keep him alive and well, rather than him possessing any exceptional characteristics.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That is an excellent point. The people I play with like role playing, so taking a 5 in a statistic would be considered a challenge for the player to incorporate the stat into an effective character, not something to be min/maxed.

DMs should absolutely demand that characters that have unusual stats, role play their stats.
That said, as someone who in 1985 played a Half-orc Fighter with 7 INT (less intelligent than a 1e carnivorous ape), and a 3 Wisdom, role playing Lenny from the novella Of Mice and Men is fun, once.

If in a rolled stats game, the DM is going to dictate that a 5 in stat must be played a particular way, then the player should be allowed a re-roll of stats.

At this point in my life, I have absolutely no desire to potentially spend years of real life time
inhabiting a role, that I have played a billion times before.
This is an extreme example, but if a DM told me I had to play a serial killer, due to a 5 WIS score, I would just pass on the game entirely.

????????

Why would low WIS = serial killer? That seems like a leap in a very random direction.

I agree totally re-rerolling stats if you would have to RP a character in a way you don't like, but who rolls stats that way, in 5E, in 2020? Even in 1989, we used "arrange to taste" so no-one was forced into that. If you're rolling you're necessarily accepting you might not get the character concept you want, too.

I think we agree though. But we're discussing someone volunteering to have 5 INT, even demanding to have 5 INT, not being forced into it.

I don't feel the need to justify any example. Intelligence is a D&D artifact..the D&D parameters of Intelligence don't apply to the real world.

So why give a real-world example, particularly one that's basically a definition of ADHD, and one which more closely matches issues with WIS? Rhetorical question, I guess.

In game terms, the Intelligence stat influences knowledge checks and formal inquiry.

A Lizardperson character with the Outlander background and a 5 INT shouldnt have to be a gormless drooler. Instead, they can simple have a world view that is so alien, that what the lizardperson knows, their whole system of knowledge, is utter nonsense to those who do not share the same world view.

That's workable, if the player is good enough at that, sure, but that's not Sherlock Holmes. Main point is, the PC will be making a significant effort to RP how their low INT plays out, probably a much bigger and far more interesting effort than "I hav iNt fife so I are dumB"-type approaches. I like it. But again it's not Sherlock Holmes, which is the problem I have here.

The actual Sherlock Holmes in say Eberron, is literally crazy. Scientific Criminal Investigation is just not how Eberron works...you can't track footprints in a world replete with Pass without Trace, bird droppings and minerals don't make gunpowder. Guns are bound elemental magic items.

I don't think this holds up to the slightest scrutiny, and surprised you typed it out and then didn't edit it out. You can absolutely track footprints in Eberron, and Sherlock would obviously immediately take on board that magic existed and adapt his methods (probably after secluding himself in a magical library for a decade to learn how magic works and walking out of there a level 5 Wizard or something). The whole point is he's smart, not an idiot-savant. An idiot-savant would be totally stuffed by the rules changing in that way. Sherlock would adapt. He would discard the way gunpowder works like you discard a fast-food wrapper.

If a player approaches you as the DM and asks to play crazy Sherlock in Sharn, are you going to say: "No, 5 INT means you must play Ruperick the monkey boy"?

This makes zero sense. Sherlock Holmes isn't an idiot. He constantly updates and adapts his methods. He's not irrational (in the broad sense). Sherlock Holmes isn't crazy, either. He's not going to insist that gunpowder works when it doesn't. He'll be surprised, then take things on board. You teleport our world's Sherlock Holmes (book version say) to Sarn, and he'll be extremely successful, if he can survive the shocks of the first few weeks.

What you seem to be describing is a severely mentally-ill person who would constantly make delusional assertions about how things work.

If a player wants to play someone who is severely mentally unwell like that, well, first off I'd discourage them because approximately 95% of attempts to do that end up in a pretty stereotypical/bad comedy place that's frankly at best uncomfortable if you know actual people with schizophrenia, delusions, or the like, but assuming they were a master of subtlety and capable of pulling it off, I'd expect them to be exactly what I described earlier in this thread - REPEATEDLY - the man who walks into a room and utters a load of total bollocks with great confidence. I'd also say INT 5 wasn't really the appropriate way to do that unless their mental problems are extremely deep-rooted, like, they can't solve puzzles, they can't parse complex text (but they could of course pretend they did), they're bad at math, and so on.

You need to RP INT 5 as a full array of being bad at INT-based tasks, not just "cute insanity" when its convenient/funny, if you're going that way. Just like we'd expect someone with STR 5 to RP their character as weak, not just "weak when its funny/convenient". The Lizardman example you gave is awesome and would do that. "IM SHERLOCK HOLMES BUT IM NUTS LOLOLOLOLOL" is eye-roll.

(My personal bugbear here is CHA though, as a DM I have HAD IT, seriously HAD IT with players who dumpstat CHA then try to act like this means they're totally likeable and cool and charming, just not a great leader (and sometimes they even forget the last bit!). INT is the second-worst for this though - low WIS people often play it up, sometimes even excessively, but INT? Pffft, you're lucky if some players even acknowledge that they picked INT 10 or even 8. I was delighted when one of my players totally subverted his own portrayal of his INT 9 Barbarian after he got a Headband of Intellect though.)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

1. The DM describes the environment.
That's the rule. What you have, here, is the player describing the environment; which is a direct violation of that rule. More importantly, though, this is a violation of Step 3. (See below)

2. The players describe what they want to do.
Note the verb: want. The player can want to do anything. What actually happens is beyond their power of declaration. Often, what they want will inform what actually happens, but the one who narrates the results is always the DM. See also: Step 3.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
The DM isn't only responsible for tagging keywords within a computer program. The DM's job is to narrate the results.

The action is that they try to walk down the hallway. The result of that action (depending on other factors known to the DM, possibly involving a die roll) is that the character trips over a rock; or they slip on a banana peel; or they're distracted by something shiny; as the DM narrates. If you just say that the Prone condition is applied, and don't go into it, then that's only halfway to describing a result. It isn't really sufficient until you narrate it. The DM tells the player what happens, because that is their role in the game.

Ok, one last try here:

1. The DM describes the environment.
If the DM has done a good enough job - explicitly or implicitly - of describing the environment, then the player certainly can invoke part of the environment as part of describing what their character is doing, thinking, or saying.

2. The players describe what they want to do.
The actual actions, thoughts, and words of a PC are the domain of the player. The consequences of those actions, thought, and words are the domain of the DM. You are possibly conflating the two.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
The DM can absolutely throw it back to the player to describe what the success or failure looked like in terms of the actions, thoughts, and words of the PC. That does not change the game we're playing nor does it change the mechanical outcome nor do the rules preclude it. "You failed the roll and your PC trips on the rock, falling flat on his face. Describe how that happened". In fact, such a simple technique enhances gameplay in that it gets the player more involved in developing the fun, memorable story.

Do you feel the rules of 5e are forcing the DM to foresake their role when a player is deciding to knock out an enemy rather than kill it? (PHB 198: The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt.)
DM: Nice attack roll! Now roll damage.
Player: 15!
DM: You take a mighty swing and the blade slices off the orcs head!
Player: Wait a second! I wanted to knock out the orc!
DM: Too late, I already finished step 3 of the play loop.

Of course, this is bit of an exaggeration but do you see the issue here? Either the DM must insist that the player declare a knock out preemptively every round they think the PC might slay the orc OR the DM prompts the player every time potential killing damage is done OR the DM lets the player describe what the action looked like. The first two options seem quite tiresome to me over the course of a campaign. It is literally impossible for the player to know a specific amount of damage drops the orc without the DM resolving the action.

DM: Nice attack roll! Now roll damage.
Player: 15!
DM: The orc is going down! What did that look like?
Player: Actually, I used the flat of my blade that time to hit the orc powerfully across the temple in an attempt to knock it out.
DM: The orc crumples to the ground, in rough shape and unconscious, but still breathes.

If you choose to forsake your role in narrating the results, then you have abandoned the basic rules of play. You've left the scope of the game, and you're wandering around in the weeds of house rules. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but your experiences out there are no longer applicable to the game in general.

Nope. No forsaking going on. Still talking about 5e here.

 

[iserith]

Failing sometimes is probably not okay for a Holmes type PC which would only fail very rarely. To accurately model Holmes you'd need to have +6 proficiency, expertise with Investigation, a 20 Int and Reliable Talent. That would give him a floor investigation of 27 which would be Holmes like.

Has Sherlock Holmes not sometimes failed?

 

[iserith]

Intelligence in 5e is quite literally the ability to recall things accurately and the ability to reason. A 5 Int is a very low ability to recall things accurately and a very low ability to reason. If you are roleplaying your PC as the opposite to what the game says your Int represents, then in my opinion you are roleplaying very poorly, especially if you are succeeding to the level of Holmes by roleplaying that way.

Yeah, in your opinion. The game's rules don't care. What you are stating is a preference. I don't share it. People can play their characters how they want. The Intelligence stat will be relevant when there's a mechanic that calls it into play.

 

[iserith]

My objection is that there has to be some basic consistency to what mental stats mean, just as there is basic consistency as to what physical stats mean, or you have an unhelpful and rather unfair double-standard.

As for showing why it should be portrayed as specific way, D&D is extremely consistent in that animals and beings who are, in colloquial terms "not very bright" have lower INT scores. I can see little deviation from this. I don't see anything that's "thick" but has 18 INT, or anything or anyone who is portrayed as brilliant, but has 8 INT. This isn't some game where the stats are totally abstract - there are RPGs like that, where you might have a "Mind" stat or the like, which might mean a lot of different things. The most abstract stat is probably WIS (which I think was a mistake, design-wise, but too late now).

So you combine those two factors I've just mentioned - firstly, that physical stats are fairly consistent and measurable and so on, which means people investing in those are tied to somewhat specific visions of characters, and secondly that D&D itself is largely consistent in how it portrays INT relative to what a "man in the street" would assume was meant by intelligence.

You've made no argument as to why a PC whose player has chosen them to have an INT score which would put them among "smart wildlife" and creatures people would be impressed managed to work a peanut dispenser or do very basic counting-based math, and among similarly-minded monsters in D&D, should in fact be some sort of well-spoken and brilliant fellow.

Players determine how their characters act, what they say, and how they think. A gorilla's Intelligence score has no bearing on how a character is portrayed unless the player decides that it does. You seem to say that you think it's somehow unfair that a player portrays an Int-5 character as something other than "thick." But again, you have nothing to back this up other than personal preference. A preference I don't share.

 

[Maxperson]

Has Sherlock Holmes not sometimes failed?

Sometimes is more often than he has failed. He rarely fails and succeeds on very hard to almost impossible DCs on a regular basis. In game terms his investigation would be at +15 or higher and with Reliable Talent. No Int 5 PC can match that.

 

[iserith]

Sometimes is more often than he has failed. He rarely fails and succeeds on very hard to almost impossible DCs on a regular basis. In game terms his investigation would be at +15 or higher and with Reliable Talent. No Int 5 PC can match that.

I doubt there are any DCs in the Sherlock Holmes books, but I'm willing to be wrong if you can cite an example. I'll wait.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, in your opinion. The game's rules don't care. What you are stating is a preference. I don't share it. People can play their characters how they want. The Intelligence stat will be relevant when there's a mechanic that calls it into play.

Yeah. I know you're okay with the color blind PC being roleplayed as seeing color, the equivalent of a 5 Int PC being roleplayed as a Holmes level investigator. I just view that as very poor RP.

 

[Maxperson]

I doubt there are any DCs in the Sherlock Holmes books, but I'm willing to be wrong if you can cite an example. I'll wait.

Are you unaware that we are discussing how Holmes would be portrayed in D&D?