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

[Cadence]

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.

A similar conversation was recently had in the thread about using out of character knowledge. I believe that the view in opposition to yours (and to my preference) is that if the player wants to have their character think something - regardless of the mental stats - then they can. If they want their 3 INT character to think they know how to make gun powder, or all of the simple machines, or a printing press, or what the MM says about all of the monsters, or how integral and differential calculus, then that's fine. They might be wrong in that particular game world. While there were clear prohibitions of this in 1e and 2e, they do not exist in 5e. As such, it might be argued that requiring play that way is a house rule (and not just "common sense" as I might still say in spite of having found no 5e rules requiring it).

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Agreed. Rules-wise, a 5 Int means that the character has some hindrances at Intelligence-based spellcasting and that checks they make that use Intelligence are somewhat more likely to fail. That's all. The rationale as to why those checks are more likely to fail falls to the player to narrate, and should be bounded by the overall character concept as agreed upon by the player and the DM. The section on "Intelligence" in the PHB has as much controlling power over the narrative as the section on the common hair color of elves.

 

[iserith]

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.

Yeah, as I stated way upthread, most of the objection to this are simply preference and has nothing to do with the rules of the game being broken or someone playing in a manner that is unfair.

 

[iserith]

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

I'm aware of how we are discussing how Holmes could be portrayed in D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm aware of how we are discussing how Holmes could be portrayed in D&D.

The things he does in the books dwarfs the lower PCs, and he does it like it was nothing.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm aware of how we are discussing how Holmes could be portrayed in D&D.

And more importantly, the discussion was about offbeat interpretations of a character for purposes of playing a PC. The goal of character building isn't to model anything, it's to make playable PCs.

 

[iserith]

The things he does in the books dwarfs the lower PCs, and he does it like it was nothing.

I assume you mean "DCs" here, not "PCs," and with regard to that there are no DCs in the novels. (Or am I mistaken?) The DM has to decide on a DC based on what the player describes relative to the fictional situation. And given a set of clues or the like, a player could conceivably just reach a conclusion on his or her own without reference to an ability check.

 

[Maxperson]

I assume you mean "DCs" here, not "PCs," and with regard to that there are no DCs in the novels. (Or am I mistaken?) The DM has to decide on a DC based on what the player describes relative to the fictional situation. And given a set of clues or the like, a player could conceivably just reach a conclusion on his or her own without reference to an ability check.

But if he's coming to those conclusions at a Holmes level of reasoning, he is roleplaying directly against what the game has set for his PC. The game sets a 5 Int explicitly as a low ability to reason. That's very poor RP in my opinion.

 

[iserith]

But if he's coming to those conclusions at a Holmes level of reasoning, he is roleplaying directly against what the game has set for his PC. The game sets a 5 Int explicitly as a low ability to reason. That's very poor RP in my opinion.

The game only says how an ability score "might" or "could" be portrayed. The rest is all you. And that's okay. But understand that not everyone shares your preference or table rules and that there's nowhere to go from here in this discussion.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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.

A Halfling with the Lucky feat is a sufficient explanation for an NPC, (though the combination still isn't an Attribute).
A player is going to want to pick a class.

The point isn't accuracy, or total fidelity....the point is allowing players to try different ideas while still being effective. I'm a powergamer by inclination, yet I will happily make a suboptimal choice if it fits "my character".

but who rolls stats that way, in 5E, in 2020?

3 out of the 4 games I am involved in have rolled stats. I know 2 more ongoing games that also use rolled stats.

Your preference is subjective and arbitrary, and should not be presumed to be universal.

The above of course also applies to my preference, to everyone's preference, really.

Sherlock Holmes isn't crazy, either. He's not going to insist that gunpowder works when it doesn't.

We don't really know that at all, being that no such short story exists. All, serialized characters eventually wind up as experts at everything the plot requires.

Remember, the prompt was a player approaches you asking to play Crazy Sherlock...and how do you respond...do you tell the player they must play Ruperick the monkey boy?

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

So your answer is indeed one must play Ruperick the monkey boy.

The point of the extreme 5 WIS/Must play a serial killer example is to illustrate that any DM prescription of how a player should role play their character can result in them reacting just as you reacted, Ruin.

Many games, (perhaps most games), are ran at what I brand as: Solve for "X" RPG Games.
The "X" variable the player is trying to determine, is what the DM will allow to work.

Some games are ran with the intention to invert that paradigm, the DM is the one that finds solutions for what the player wants to do.

Either style works, because D&D is like sex, a good intentioned, mediocre session with nice people, is still rather satisfying, even if it wasn't exactly the way you wanted it to be.