One of the players at one of the tables I'm DMing will not dump INT, because he will not play a character less intelligent than he is. I can respect this, though I'm not a stickler about it in play, most of the time.
D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
- Thread starter Hriston
- Start date
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Actually they are just that.
Now, I tend to create characters along the lines one might expect. I don’t play a strongman with 8 Str, or a weakling with 16 strength. Mostly because it’s just easier to not do that.
But I’m leery of the claim that it’s incorrect to create interesting characters that seem to defy their stats.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
What stats represent are defined by the rules. Ignoring that is like ignoring that ability checks just determine success or failure, and not how well the character tried. You can do it, but it isn't following the rules as written.
You may have missed my point.
In an approach to adjudication of the sort that you advocate, the player's goal is to describe what their PC does with sufficiently advantageous fictional positioning that the GM does not regard success as uncertain and hence does not call for a check.
And - as per your exchange with @HammerMan upthread - the scope of permissible description, by a player, of what their PC does is (at least in many cases) independent of what their ability and skill bonuses are.
Hence, it is possible for a character, in play, to be extremely and successfully sneaky and yet have a modest or even non-existent bonus in DEX and DEX(Stealth).
This is driven home by @Nefermandias's post upthread: "I can run a whole campaign in 5e without asking for ability checks". Particularising that to the case of Stealth, a PC in 5e D&D can successfully stealth their way through a whole campaign - at least if your approach to adjudication is used - by clever action declaration while having a DEX bonus of +0 and no proficiency in Stealth skill.
For those D&D players - who are obviously not all of them, but clearly are some of them - who think that what a PC is able to succeed at should correlate in some fashion to what is on their PC sheet, the possibility I've just described is not desirable. Hence they reject your approach to adjudication.
Their rejection obviously is not a reason for you to change your approach. But I don't think it's particularly hard to see what their issue is.
Again, I don't think you've fully addressed the point I was making.
When I mentioned the player in my 4e game who - drawing on his actual knowledge of military history - used a "tank traps" approach to help defend a homestead against attacks by goblins, including wolf riders, you replied "Awesome. Glad that player is on my team." I inferred from that that you think the action declaration about building tank traps from rope and timber is a good action declaration, that is pertinent to adjudication.
I further inferred that you think it is a superior action declaration to, for instance, just saying "I prepare defensive fortifications using rope and timber" without actually saying something about how that is going to be done.
Assuming those inferences are correct - to me they seem highly consistent not only with your "Awesome" response but your other posts in this thread, including but not limited to your example of using a ladder to climb a wall.
Now suppose the two contrasting action declarations are not I prepare defensive fortifications using rope and timber vs I use rope and timber to build <describes things like tank traps> that will help block the charge because of <explains how tank traps work to block charges>. Suppose instead that they are I give a rousing speech to encourage the soldiers to hold the line vs I address the soldiers - <gives rousing speech about how they should hold the line>.
I take it that you treat these latter two action declarations equivalently. But I think that they stand in exactly the same contrast as the first pair. Only the second of the two declarations in my second pair actually explains how it is that the speech will rouse the soldiers - by actually modelling it - whereas the first simply asserts without explaining that the speech is rousing, just as the first declaration in the first pair simply asserts without explaining that the rope and timber are used to prepare defensive fortifications.
To boil it down: if a player's ability to understand how tank traps works gives their PC a benefit to defend a homestead against goblins, why should a player's ability to know how to inspire people not give their PC a benefit to inspire people? Obviously you are drawing a line here, but to me the line seems a little arbitrary. Or maybe that's not quite the right word, because I'm sure you have a reason that is sensible for you as to why you're drawing the line. But that reason isn't accessible to me - so to me the line seems idiosyncratic to you.
In my 4e GMing, my BW GMing, my Prince Valiant GMing, in both pairs of action declarations the second one, which actually explains or spells out what the PC is doing to achieve their goal, would be a superior action declaration. But in none of them would it be an "automatic success" because none of those systems uses the criteria you are using to determine whether or not a check is called for.
If the action declaration, in a social context, is an actual social performance, it doesn't get more specific than that! Likewise, if the action declaration is a chess game, actually saying what moves your PC makes.
STR is also a factor in calculating carrying capacity and maximum jump distance, isn't it?
No, they aren't. Stats X do include penalty Y to rolls, but to say that's the only reason they matter is, um, silly. You keep on keeping on though.
I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here.
And in the context of 5e D&D, for me at least this always get back to the question why can't the devout fighter pray to the gods for miracles, and have them answered, even though there is no divine spellcasting ability recorded on that character's PC sheet?
I tend to think that, for the same sorts of reasons as being able to pray for miracles is channelled through rather specific class features, so being able to sneak around without being caught is also something that it makes sense to channel through specific class features.
Otherwise just play a free descriptor RPG!
Oofta
Legend
Personally I would not enjoy a game where there were never any ability skill checks less than one that uses them. If someone at the table knows military tactics (or is just good at making up convincing B.S.) it would only have minimal effect.
I want my PC build to matter. It's why I try to build balanced characters that have a breadth of skills that can be useful. If you use player knowledge, where does it end? Do the PCs suddenly know how to make gunpowder because the player is a chemist?
Player skill and tactical acumen will frequently have an impact on the game. Whether it's using spells the most efficiently or simple tactics like focusing fire when appropriate. But describing a tank trap as defense? Not in and of itself going to matter if I have a say.
But that's just my two coppers and preference.
I want my PC build to matter. It's why I try to build balanced characters that have a breadth of skills that can be useful. If you use player knowledge, where does it end? Do the PCs suddenly know how to make gunpowder because the player is a chemist?
Player skill and tactical acumen will frequently have an impact on the game. Whether it's using spells the most efficiently or simple tactics like focusing fire when appropriate. But describing a tank trap as defense? Not in and of itself going to matter if I have a say.
But that's just my two coppers and preference.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
A player is advised to take their character's ability scores into account when fleshing out the character's appearance and personality, but ultimately a player decides how the character acts and thinks. Inspiration is awarded for acting in particular ways according to personal characteristics which notably aren't tied to ability scores.
I'm running a secondary campaign right now where multiple PCs have Int 5. A few have Cha 5. They still portray the character however they want. It's not up to me to tell them how to play Int 5 and certain portrayals would probably be offensive anyway. What it means in play is that they are largely terrible at exploration challenges involving Intelligence and bad at social interaction challenges. Inspiration gets spent a lot in these situations because they can't reliably deduce the working of a trap or secret door they found, recall useful lore, or try to influence NPCs without it. They end up having to pay NPCs a lot for lore or favors. These are the trade-offs they accepted. They aren't getting away with anything or "cheating."
I'm running a secondary campaign right now where multiple PCs have Int 5. A few have Cha 5. They still portray the character however they want. It's not up to me to tell them how to play Int 5 and certain portrayals would probably be offensive anyway. What it means in play is that they are largely terrible at exploration challenges involving Intelligence and bad at social interaction challenges. Inspiration gets spent a lot in these situations because they can't reliably deduce the working of a trap or secret door they found, recall useful lore, or try to influence NPCs without it. They end up having to pay NPCs a lot for lore or favors. These are the trade-offs they accepted. They aren't getting away with anything or "cheating."
