D&D 5E How do you determine your initial Attributes?

[Maxperson]

Okay, then let me reword the problem so as to be a bit less vulnerable to pedantry-as-argument. You are equating Forrest Gump, a character noted for having a significantly impaired reasoning process, with an intelligence ability score of the smallest functional penalty represented in the system. A person with this ability score would only suffer a 5% lower chance in intelligence related checks than someone of average intelligence.

Yes. That's how the game works. It only has 3 categories, not a bunch of them, so -1 is would be impaired to the point of Gump. -2 would be much more significantly impaired. -3 is almost to the point of being an animal. An ape has a 6 intelligence, so Gump gets an 8.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

And this is not a competitive sport, you are not playing against the other players or against the DM, and luck will play a major factor for your character during its life, with no regards to fairness. Moreover, as a player, how do you even know the stats of the characters of other players ? And even with equal stats, the game is not balanced, the classes and races are not balanced, the situations are not balanced. All of this is completely artificial anyway.

During any campaign, you will be making lots of attack rolls, lots of ability checks or saving throws, lots of skill checks, etc, but if you are rolling your stats, you only do that once, so high stat rolls or low stat rolls stick with you for the entirety of the game. It's not the same thing.

You would know the other players stats because they don't roll in secret (unless you like cheating). Fairness is definitely relevant even though you're not competing with other players. As for the game not being balanced, I can't imagine why I would want to make it less balanced.

 

[Amrûnril]

You're confusing median with average. They aren't the same thing.

51.6% of the population is average. The rest is split between above average and below average. So only 24.2% are below average, and that percentage includes everything from below average to the most cognitively impaired person.

For mathematical purposes, "average" generally refers to the arithmetic mean (though terms like arithmetic mean, median or geometric mean are generally prefered for specificity). It sounds like you're instead using "average" to describe values within some range of a mean or median. Doing this, though, you can define that range in such a way that any percentage of the population you want is "average". There's nothing special about 51.6%.

3e did the same conversion. IQ was int x 10. So he's around an 8.

This may have been implied in past editions, but past editions also implied that the 3d6 bell curve represented the distribution of ability scores for the population at large. The two assumptions aren't consistent with one another, and I prefer the latter, as it makes fuller use of the range of possible scores and allows more nuanced differences to be represented.

 

[Lyxen]

During any campaign, you will be making lots of attack rolls, lots of ability checks or saving throws, lots of skill checks, etc, but if you are rolling your stats, you only do that once, so high stat rolls or low stat rolls stick with you for the entirety of the game. It's not the same thing.

And there is no guarantee that I or them have allocated the stats in a way that is going to be more or less beneficial, depending on what is happening during the campaign. I might have put a lot in charisma, but what if there is little social ? Or a lot in combat stats but what if there is little combat ? As for luck, again the law of large number only applies to large number of rolls, it will not apply on any given roll where it's critical for the life of the adventurer.

You would know the other players stats because they don't roll in secret (unless you like cheating). Fairness is definitely relevant even though you're not competing with other players.

There is no obligation to roll in public, this is why there is a DM. I don't know the stats of the other players at a table, never seen their stats, did not see them generate the character, it just happened with the DM.

As for the game not being balanced, I can't imagine why I would want to make it less balanced.

Because balance is artificial anyway, it all depends on the situations that are presented. My point is that technical balance is a lure anyway, and a few more stat points one way or another, especially on wildly different character, are not a mark of fairness. What is important is fairness in fun and spotlight, and that is extremely removed from stats anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

That's fine if that is the expectation at your table. Although it reads as if you are venturing into the "your character wouldn't do/say that" territory if someone should do something which is outside of what you expect - an utterance which is like the 5 of the holy hand grenade for many: right out. Worth noting: 8 is mechanically 5% off the average when rolls are involved. Discernable from average in gameplay? I think we've agreed elsewhere that it is not.

This is part of the game where the mechanics and fluff don't really align. To do intelligence properly, you'd need bonuses at every number and not just every other number. Forest Gump with his 75 IQ rates a 7.5(7 or 8) intelligence score.

Again, when there are animals with a 3 and a gorilla has a 6, and 10 is average, an 8 is Gump territory. He was definitely more intelligent than a gorilla and there's no other place to put it than in the 8 range.

This ground has been tread before and I know you have disagreed before. There are suggestions and qualified statements about how one might play stats in 5e - with many "usuallys" and "probablys" and "might bes" - but, again, there is nothing exacting or prescriptive in the rules about it. Anyone else that wants to review the "Your Character's Abilities" section, it's on pg 14 of the PHB.

We do know from RAW that it is impaired reasoning ability, though.

At the end of the day, players can roleplay their character any way they like - as defined by the 5e PHB. It's "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." Not the dice. Not the stats. The player. It's absolutely fine to have the dice or stats determine those things, if that is what your table finds fun. But it is not a baseline expectation of 5e.

If RAW has determined that with an 8 you have impaired memory, ability to reason and an impaired ability to understand(mental acuity), and you are acting normal or above average in intelligence, that's really bad roleplaying.

I mean, for example, you may have a player who plays their INT 6, CHA 18 character as someone who pretends (or has even convinced themselves) that they are smart. But they are more likely to falter if the dice get brought out to resolve an action that calls for an INT ability check. Is that somehow "improper" roleplaying?

But if they pretend that they are smart by constantly doing smart things, that's not pretending. The fact is that they have a significantly impaired ability to understand, reason and remember by RAW. They have the intelligence of a gorilla or chimpanzee.

 

[Oofta]

For mathematical purposes, "average" generally refers to the arithmetic mean (though terms like arithmetic mean, median or geometric mean are generally prefered for specificity). It sounds like you're instead using "average" to describe values within some range of a mean or median. Doing this, though, you can define that range in such a way that any percentage of the population you want is "average". There's nothing special about 51.6%.


This may have been implied in past editions, but past editions also implied that the 3d6 bell curve represented the distribution of ability scores for the population at large. The two assumptions aren't consistent with one another, and I prefer the latter, as it makes fuller use of the range of possible scores and allows more nuanced differences to be represented.

Not that I want to get into this argument yet again, but I don't remember 3d6 for the average population ever being implied. I think any measurement we come up with is going to be flawed because IQ tests are flawed, but score times 10 gets you in a reasonable ballpark. It's only an issue with people force (and decide that it is the de facto rule of the land) the 3d6 bell curve onto the IQ bell curve and then insist that therefore it's a broken paradigm.

I think Int x 10 = IQ gets you roughly in the ballpark at least well enough for RP purposes. As far as the game is concerned, all the numbers really mean in 5E is a +/-.

 

[Maxperson]

This may have been implied in past editions, but past editions also implied that the 3d6 bell curve represented the distribution of ability scores for the population at large. The two assumptions aren't consistent with one another, and I prefer the latter, as it makes fuller use of the range of possible scores and allows more nuanced differences to be represented.

Stated, not implied. It was stated that IQ was roughly Int x 10. As recently as 3e.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are 3 basic methods often discussed, but I'm curious of the 3 which one is most common?

We use them all so I picked the method used for the most recent campaign.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Yes. That's how the game works. It only has 3 categories, not a bunch of them, so -1 is would be impaired to the point of Gump. -2 would be much more significantly impaired. -3 is almost to the point of being an animal. An ape has a 6 intelligence, so Gump gets an 8.

Completely disagree (obviously). First off, trying to use animal ability scores as a basis for determining human(or demihuman) ability scores seems like a mistake right off the bat. Monsters, NPCs and PCs are all handled differently for a reason. Apes have an intelligence of 6 as a way of comparison to other animals to show how much smarter they are than most animals, not as a guideline for how dumb a person can be.

Second, even if you were to use it as a comparison point, who's to say that an ape can't be smarter than an impaired human? Apes in the real world are plenty smart, even to the point of learning language(sign language in this case). The limitations seem to be more of species than brain power. An ape that was smarter than most wouldn't suddenly be capable of human speech(in real life, anyway. In a fantasy setting? Maybe).

Third, using the traditional 3d6, it's possible to have an intelligence of 3 in a character who is still functional enough to be an adventurer. If 8 is Forrest Gump, then what is a 4 in terms of actually still being functional?

Finally, if you're using standard array, then 1 of your stats is going to be an 8 (barring ASI use). That means that by your reckoning, at least one stat is impaired in a way similar fashion that Forrest Gump is with intelligence. Nearly every single PC using standard array is either neurodivergent, suffering from muscular dystrophy, etc. Or else you're applying standards to intelligence that you aren't to other stats, which probably isn't great.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is part of the game where the mechanics and fluff don't really align. To do intelligence properly, you'd need bonuses at every number and not just every other number. Forest Gump with his 75 IQ rates a 7.5(7 or 8) intelligence score.

Ah, interesting take. "Don't really align" for some, I guess. Or perhaps others just don't put as much importance on closely aligning mechanics and fluff in 5e.

Again, when there are animals with a 3 and a gorilla has a 6, and 10 is average, an 8 is Gump territory. He was definitely more intelligent than a gorilla and there's no other place to put it than in the 8 range.

I see where you are going here. If one insists on realism, then sure. If one accepts that there are going to be inconsistencies in the fantasy world, then no issue here.

Furthermore, if one accepts that there is really no prescriptive roleplaying insisted upon in the 5e rules, then this entire concern evaporates. I certainly don't have the time or inclination to worry about it for my prep and game play. YMMV.

We do know from RAW that it is impaired reasoning ability, though.

Please provide quote and page number. Thx.

If RAW has determined that with an 8 you have impaired memory,

Which 5e has not... unless you can provide me with a concrete quote from the rules that I somehow missed.

ability to reason and an impaired ability to understand(mental acuity), and you are acting normal or above average in intelligence, that's really bad roleplaying. But if they pretend that they are smart by constantly doing smart things, that's not pretending. The fact is that they have a significantly impaired ability to understand, reason and remember by RAW. They have the intelligence of a gorilla or chimpanzee.

Thankfully, your indictment of players deciding what their character thinks, says, and does (or tries to do) as "bad roleplaying" is so off base that I can't rightfully be offended by it. I hope no one else is either.