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

[Cadence]

So how is it okay that that's the case with INT and WIS and CHA, but not with all stats? This is a clear double-standard, and one which isn't apparently well-supported by any kind of actual rationale beyond "I want it thatta way!", to quote the Backstreet Boys.

Yep. A low wisdom might be foolhardy or absentminded or oblivious. There is no, might be very wise. Those "mights" are right in line with the what abilities represent sections with ability checks.
...
You are adding to the game that which is not there.

5e lacks the prohibition against (fragrantly?) using out of character knowledge, like 1e and 2e do. That means that by 5e RAW the player can have the characters thoughts reflect the players in terms of critical thinking skills, knowledge of the monster manual, knowledge of tactics, reciting romantic poetry, etc... So the only time the INT, WIS, and CHA rolls are needed by raw is when the character is attempting an act with a chance of failure ("My [5 int fighter] attempts to recall his days of studying engineering so he can disable the trap.") as opposed to the character acting on something the player had them think of ([after hearing the description] "My [5 int fighter] pulls the third level on the left after I have the other fighter pound a wooden wedge into the gear.").

I'd house rule against flagrant uses of OOC knowledge like that, but others would allow it and say it causes no troubles at their tables.

 

[iserith]

Yep. A low wisdom might be foolhardy or absentminded or oblivious. There is no, might be very wise. Those "mights" are right in line with the what abilities represent sections with ability checks.

If you are misrepresenting low or high stats, you are going against what both page 14 and the ability check section are telling you.

A low Int might be represented a number of ways that indicate poor reasoning ability. There is no way of representing a low Int by being Holmes that fits page 14 or the ability check section.

You are adding to the game that which is not there.

I might interpret ability scores one way or I might interpret them another. That's what the book is saying. It gives suggestions, but ultimately it's up to the player. I'm sorry that your preference is not mandated by the rules, but it is what it is. Do you feel you need your preference mandated by rules?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My position is easy to understand: The player decides how they portray their own character.

So that's a yes? I could dumpstat STR/DEX/CON in your game, yet describe my PC as some tireless athlete?

If so that's actually kind of cool, but I feel like you're being deliberately evasive and the answer is actually no.

 

[Cadence]

So that's a yes? I could dumpstat STR/DEX/CON in your game, yet describe my PC as some tireless athlete?

What things requiring athletics/attack/etc...don't have a chance of failure and so are not adjudicated by dice rolls based on attributes?
What things using STR/DEX/CON don't have definitively prescriptive rules... like the ridiculous carrying capacity limits?

Presumably the things lacking some restraint like an ability check or a hard rule would be allowable by RAW, right?

 

[Maxperson]

5e lacks the prohibition against (fragrantly?) using out of character knowledge, like 1e and 2e do. That means that by 5e RAW the player can have the characters thoughts reflect the players in terms of critical thinking skills, knowledge of the monster manual, knowledge of tactics, reciting romantic poetry, etc... So the only time the INT, WIS, and CHA rolls are needed by raw is when the character is attempting an act with a chance of failure ("My [5 int fighter] attempts to recall his days of studying engineering so he can disable the trap.") as opposed to the character acting on something the player had them think of ([after hearing the description] "My [5 int fighter] pulls the third level on the left after I have the other fighter pound a wooden wedge into the gear.").

I'd house rule against flagrant uses of OOC knowledge like that, but others would allow it and say it causes not troubles at their tables.

Yes, there's no outright prohibition, but the game does dictate what a low intelligence score means for your character. So if you are roleplaying a Holmes like intellect while have a 5 Int score, you are misrepresenting your stat which is poor roleplaying. Your table may be cool with that, but it's still roleplaying against what the game has set forth for your PC.

 

[Maxperson]

I might interpret ability scores one way or I might interpret them another. That's what the book is saying. It gives suggestions, but ultimately it's up to the player. I'm sorry that your preference is not mandated by the rules, but it is what it is. Do you feel you need your preference mandated by rules?

You might interpret up as down, black as white and living as dead, too. Those would be just as accurate. The game just does not back you up on this.

 

[iserith]

So that's a yes? I could dumpstat STR/DEX/CON in your game, yet describe my PC as some tireless athlete?

If so that's actually kind of cool, but I feel like you're being deliberately evasive and the answer is actually no.

I'm not being evasive. My answer stands. You get to decide how you portray your character and not a single player at my table, nor me as DM, will ever question it.

 

[iserith]

You might interpret up as down, black as white and living as dead, too. Those would be just as accurate. The game just does not back you up on this.

The game leave it to the player to decide. You can play your Int-5 character as a dunce. Someone else can play them as a genius. If you prohibit the latter, that's a table rule and you're within your rights to establish such a table rule if you want. I don't.

 

[Cadence]

Yes, there's no outright prohibition, but the game does dictate what a low intelligence score means for your character. So if you are roleplaying a Holmes like intellect while have a 5 Int score, you are misrepresenting your stat which is poor roleplaying. Your table may be cool with that, but it's still roleplaying against what the game has set forth for your PC.

The game used to deal with the problem of a 5 INT "genius" in the rules in 1e and 2e by talking about using out of character knowledge and saying it's bad. That strikes me as saying it isn't entirely obvious that it is bad (is a rule needed against the obvious? -- the movie Babe not withstanding).

Now in 5e -- in an era where there are lots of games that encourage non-DM players to shape the world, seem not to have a problem with OOC knowledge and don't have ability scores -- they decided not to include a prohibition against OOC knowledge. Do you think that was intentional, a mistake and we could get them to admit it should be there on twitter, or that it has somehow become obvious since 2e that OOC knowledge is bad?

[And, well, my table wouldn't be cool with it ].

 

[iserith]

The game used to deal with the problem of a 5 INT "genius" in the rules in 1e and 2e by talking about using out of character knowledge and saying it's bad. That strikes me as saying it isn't entirely obvious that it is bad (is a rule needed against the obvious? -- the movie Babe not withstanding).

Now in 5e -- in an era where there are lots of games that encourage characters to shape the world, seem not to have a problem with OOC knowledge and don't have ability scores -- they decided not to include a prohibition against OOC knowledge. Do you think that was intentional, a mistake and we could get them to admit it should be there on twitter, or that it has somehow become obvious since 2e that OOC knowledge is bad?

Another way of thinking about it might be that they leave it to the individual groups and players to decide. In my games, if you don't want to use "OOC knowledge" you can just choose not to do that. What you don't get to choose is how someone else at the table handles it since that is their character. This seems to me to be the easiest solution.