D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Voadam]

Are there any hard coded ability requirements in 5e like there were 3.5 and before? (Are any multi-class requirements optional, for example).

Multiclassing is itself labelled as optional and only with the DMs permission but on page 163 of the 5e PH they have the hard coded stat requirements for multiclassing (they are all 13s).

PREREQUISITES
To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score prerequisites for both your current class and your new one, as shown in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table. For example, a barbarian who decides to multiclass into the druid class must have both Strength and Wisdom scores of 13 or higher. Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores.

 

[Charlaquin]

You definitely can role play a Sherlock Holmes character concept. Approach things like an investigator, look for clues, try to figure things out. Say "I can't make bricks without clay!" when you do not have enough information.

This is an approach to roleplaying a character, it works regardless of the int on the sheet.

You will not instantly figure things out Benedict Cumberbatch Sherlock style, you might not figure anything out, but you can always role play Sherlock as an approach and a characterization.

In 5e a background as an investigator with investigation as one of the two skills should cover things mechanically for the desired narrative even though without a high int you won't get the maximum investigation bonus possible.

Oh, you absolutely can! But, if you have a low intelligence score, you’ll have a harder time succeeding on those rolls.

 

[Faolyn]

For me it depends on the actions and the bothering. Outright traumatizing someone, no. Mocking a real-world difference, no (unless I know the person is more than capable of giving it right back, in which case all's fair).

But I well remember one guy I played with who got wigged out when my character developed a crush on his character and I roleplayed (voice only) how she was flirting with him; and call me callous if you like but IMO if something like that bothers someone then that person might have some self-examination to do.

You're callous. There's lots of reasons why that would bother someone--even though you seem to be implying that only people who have something "wrong" with them would be unhappy with in-game flirting.

Personally, I have a fun combination of being aroace and being an Aspie. You flirt with me unexpectedly, even if it's 200% in character, I will completely freeze, blank out, and start to panic. I had to ask a DM to stop having NPCs flirt with me because it was causing me so many problems (and his flirting was super-gentle, with no expectations of it going anyway unless I took the lead) He was incredibly apologetic because he didn't realize it was bothering me.

And then when you consider that a large number of people either have been sexually harassed in real life, who don't want to have a pretend romantic relationship with a real-life buddy, or who are playing the game because they want to kill monsters and take their stuff, not engage in sex or romance.

The other thing is, your character didn't "develop" a crush on the other PC. Our characters aren't actually alive or have wills of their own. You deliberately chose to have your PC have a crush on another PC. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were doing it purely for roleplaying purposes, and not because you wanted to freak out the other player or because you had feelings for him and wanted to have them play out in-game. (I've read horror stories about both of these happening.) In either case, it appears you didn't discuss it with the other player first. Not cool. The fact that he turned out to be monstrous in real life doesn't actually mean anything in this context. He would have been terrible even if you had never had your PC have a crush on him.

 

[Eltab]

When I chaperoned a high school trip to Spain, the store staffs in Barcelona were the most helpful to a group of tourists, compared to the other cities we visited.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not really. That's the basic message of the OP. It's not a made-up argument, it's the core of the discussion. All this other pontificating is just so much hot air.

29 pages now of avoiding the issue in order to discuss the definition of "don't be a douche".

It is only the core because someone made it up. The OP's post was about being an ableist, and stating:

When you play 'stupid' characters are you are saying that there are stupid people and then you are imitating those people.

Indirectly mocking and mocking are two different things. Ignorantly mocking and directly mocking are two different things.

My statement is true - no one had defended playing a "stupid" character for comedic reasons.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah, we've been imagining all the "B-but it's not real! That makes saying, doing and acting out terrible things A-OK!" arguments in defense of such characters.

Though that's par for the course. 'Stereotypes are okay, actually' as a new one I didn't expect.

FOR comedic reasons.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It is only the core because someone made it up. The OP's post was about being an ableist, and stating:

Indirectly mocking and mocking are two different things. Ignorantly mocking and directly mocking are two different things.

My statement is true - no one had defended playing a "stupid" character for comedic reasons.

Indeed. There seem to be two axis of discussion, the importance of intent (are you trying to roleplay correctly a low INT character or are you mocking with hurtful or comedic intent?) and the importance of context (are you doing it while reading a solo adventure in the middle of the Sahara or are you doing it while streaming your game at millions of fans?).

If one adheres to the opinion that intent and context don't matter at all, then doing your best in your private group of like-minded friend will not pass their morality criterion, so their advice would be not to roleplay low INT char at all. If, at the other end of one axis, one adheres to the idea that intent defines morality, not consequences, then trying your best and failing isn't problematic (and you can still play low INT char as long as you're doing a honest effort to do it well, even if the end result is cringeworthy), while roleplaying any character with the intent to do harm would be morally repugnant, even if it was failing to do any harm (for example, thinking "I'll try to play a disabled character to make fun of disabled people" and achieving, in effect, to roleplay a cool artificer hero with prosthetic limbs no outside observer considers disrespecting).

 

[Lanefan]

Well obviously that's implied isn't? Being good at some things means being bad at others.

Of course. What I'm getting at is that there's three possibilities: you're good at something, you're average at something, or you're bad at something. I want the stats to point out the good and the bad, with anything not pointed out defaulting to average.

Playing the character you rolled means playing a character that has a certain percentage chance of succeeding on a roll.

If all one cares about is sheer mechanics, then yes.

But if one is also looking to the numbers to inform more about what the character is and does and-or how it acts, then no.

Everything else is just someone's interpretation.

(Although of course since we're largely discussing 5e we are not rolling up a character to see what we get (even when the rolling method is used players decide where the scores go - so they design the character). I know you play a more old school style of game - but you really need to not interpret other people's posts as if they're approaching things the same way you are when obviously we are not.

The bolded applies to our games as well, and always has.

In modern D&D the purpose of ability scores is not to see what kind of character you are going to paly.)

I reserve the right to decide what it means that my character is not good at certain things.

I don't see where the bad faith is supposed to be and frankly, resent the implication.

Where's the bad faith here?

Me: "I rolled a 6 on Int. I want to interpret this as my character is smart but has had a very sheltered upbringing and no formal education.
DM: No 6 Int means he's an imbecile. You have to play it that way.
Me: Ok seeya.

Were I the DM here I wouldn't say you have to play it as an imbecile.

That said, I'd still take this "my character is smart but has had a very sheltered upbringing and no formal education" with a great big grain of salt in case you're just trying to carve yourself a loophole for later exploitation: the character hasn't had formal education but if ever exposed to such it'll be smart enough to take full advantage of it, quickly rendering that '6' meaningless.

Sorry, no go. One of the things an Int score defines is the general ability to learn (which is largely done via memorization, something specifically called out in 5e's definition of intelligence); so here it wouldn't matter whether your PC had previously been exposed to formal education or not, it still ain;t much of a learner.

The sheltered upbringing piece would IMO play more into Wisdom than Intelligence.

 

[Lanefan]

Playing it as you the player is one option, the other is to roleplay it as a concept separate from either you or the mechanical stats.

A Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes concept executed as a monk for the excellent bare-knuckle brawler combatant with an investigator background seems a really fun concept to me even if the character dump stats int to accomodate an effective monk MAD build, but plays him as a smart analytical investigator who approaches things logically.

Or a high int wizard roleplayed as a dim bulb because it is fun to dive into a clueless specialized academic role. Similarly playing a foolish cleric with a high wisdom stat or a quiet unassuming sorcerer with a high charisma.

The two bolded parts above add up to bad faith play in my view: the character's defined weakness has been arbitrarily turned into an in-play strength.

Underplaying a character is fine in that even though you're playing something as a weakness the underlying strength is still there if-when you need it.

The only way I can see to build a Sherlock-Holmes Monk would be to roll stats and hope you get at least 5 really good rolls! (you could dump-stat Charisma perhaps)

 

[Lanefan]

Setting aside the fact that people’s brains don’t really work the way the mental D&D stats do, a very clever player whose character has a very low intelligence and/or wisdom score will still have to make checks when performing tasks that rely on those abilities and involve a chance of failure and meaningful stakes. Which should be fairly often if the DM is setting up appropriate challenges. So to me, this notion of genius players dumping intelligence and relying on their real-life smarts to circumvent the disadvantage is overblown.

I disagree, in that there's no check involved when a character comes up with a bright idea or a smart strategy or a brilliant plan; all of which are things a low-Int character might stumble into doing once in a while but aren't going to happen often if the player is honouring the stat score.

And if the alternative is telling players they aren’t allowed to take certain actions because their character isn’t smart enough to think of them, I’d much rather err on the side of letting smart players succeed at things.

I'd prefer that if a smart player is playing a low-Int character, that the smart player largely shut their brain off and let others do the thinking. (I sometimes play low-Int and-or "I'll do what I'm told" characters for just this reason - it's a welcome break!).