D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Maxperson]

On ability scores.

PHB 173: "Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability."

From that we know that an ability score has two parts. The first part is the innate capability or magnitude of that ability. The 8 or 18. The second part is the ability score bonus which represents the creature's training and competence related to that ability. That game is explicitly telling us that the ability is more than the bonus.

PHB 173: "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches."

Here it tells us how to read the base ability number(not the bonus). 10-11 is human average, so a 10-11 strength would not be someone who is very strong physically like @Bill Zebub's example. And it tells us that 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches, so we know that an 18 strength is very strong. Conversely, based on those two example we know that a 3 strength is very weak.

PHB 175: "Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force."

Here it tells us that strength measures bodily power, so a PC with a low strength has low bodily power and ability to exert raw physical force, which is the opposite of someone with a powerful build, even if that powerful build somehow has a negative ability modifier.

It's not wrong to play the way Bill Zebub is saying, but it's also not RAW. This is a situation in which to play that way, you have to ignore what RAW is saying and opt into a different playstyle, much the same as when @HammerMan rolls to see how well his NPCs are performing a skill. This sort of playstyle is just not my cup of tea. It sounds like Bill Zebub would have a grand time playing that way and as long as people are having fun, they're doing it right.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

First, I think this is a super uptight way to play.

But even so, what happens if your not-so-clever friend is playing the high-int puzzle solver? How do they roleplay that? Constantly roll dice, and if they roll high the DM hands them the answer, while you keep silent about your solution?

Why not give the player a cool idea that you don’t think your character would come up with, and they could roleplay that it was their character’s idea?

I agree with BOTH you and @Fenris-77, I'm just going to do each thing in its own 'box'. If I'm IN CHARACTER, then I'm the dumb charming muscle-bound fighter, and if I'm ME sitting at the table, OOC, then I'm not dumb at all, and I'm just playing a game with my friends, whom I am free to advise! I don't see the problem, unless you insist on some sort of tortuous "nobody can ever be out of character" which is fine if that's how people want to play, but it ain't for me, lol.

 

[HammerMan]

That seems open to interpretation, a lot of them could be viewed as terrible at melee.

now this is an interesting take (one that might need a totally different conversation) but other then orko and the parents (maybe sorceress) who wasn't at least able to hold there own in melee?

 

[iserith]

On ability scores.

PHB 173: "Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability."

From that we know that an ability score has two parts. The first part is the innate capability or magnitude of that ability. The 8 or 18. The second part is the ability score bonus which represents the creature's training and competence related to that ability. That game is explicitly telling us that the ability is more than the bonus.

PHB 173: "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches."

Here it tells us how to read the base ability number(not the bonus). 10-11 is human average, so a 10-11 strength would not be someone who is very strong physically like @Bill Zebub's example. And it tells us that 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches, so we know that an 18 strength is very strong. Conversely, based on those two example we know that a 3 strength is very weak.

PHB 175: "Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force."

Here it tells us that strength measures bodily power, so a PC with a low strength has low bodily power and ability to exert raw physical force, which is the opposite of someone with a powerful build, even if that powerful build somehow has a negative ability modifier.

It's not wrong to play the way Bill Zebub is saying, but it's also not RAW. This is a situation in which to play that way, you have to ignore what RAW is saying and opt into a different playstyle, much the same as when @HammerMan rolls to see how well his NPCs are performing a skill. This sort of playstyle is just not my cup of tea. It sounds like Bill Zebub would have a grand time playing that way and as long as people are having fun, they're doing it right.

Players also determine what their characters think and do, and the rules only tell them to take into account their ability scores when deciding on appearance and personality. Taking something into account means to consider it. People can consider and ultimately reject it when deciding what to do. It would therefore be more accurate in my view to say that the rules support taking these things into account, but does not support not doing so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Advising other players occasionally is of course not a problem, but I can see how it might be annoying if it became habitual. I certainly have heard stories where people complain about a fellow player who tries to backseat drive how to play their character.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, its entertainment, not a fine art. If the GM thinks a PC should know or remember something based on his INT and the player obviously doesn't, its perfectly fine to convey that information too. Nor is it true that less intelligent people lack the ability to have good ideas. Their ideas might be simpler and take less factors into account, typically, but that does not guarantee they won't be good workable ideas. Even less intelligent people often get along pretty well in life, they're just not making complicated plans. Sometimes it may even be helpful, at least they have fewer options to sort through, which can be a GOOD thing when its time to just DO SOMETHING NOW. I mean, if a PC has a 4 INT or something, OK that might be a bit more limiting, but 5e at least doesn't really allow for that in PCs.

 

[HammerMan]

Janveer’s player would have some tricky to weasel out of it.

and since we don't believe in keeping secrets, that would cause issues that he weaseled out of it.

 

[Maxperson]

Players also determine what their characters think and do, and the rules only tell them to take into account their ability scores when deciding on appearance and personality. Taking something into account means to consider it.

And failing to play a low intelligence is the player failing to take what that ability score means into account. If the player is playing a 5 int Sherlock Holmes(I had forgotten that one until you mentioned it ), then they are not following what RAW tells them that they should do.

It would therefore be more accurate in my view to say that the rules support taking these things into account, but does not support not doing so.

Like the ability check discussion.

 

[iserith]

And failing to play a low intelligence is the player failing to take what that ability score means into account. If the player is playing a 5 int Sherlock Holmes(I had forgotten that one until you mentioned it ), then they are not following what RAW tells them that they should do.

Like the ability check discussion.

I think that's inaccurate though. "Taking into account" doesn't mean doing anything other than considering it. (This is in the character creation rules, for the record.) So sure, I considered playing my Int 5 character as someone who is not smart, but ultimately decided on Sherlock Holmes. I'll just have to live with whatever costs or risks that might entail and hope that someone creates a smarter Watsonesque character to help me out.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think that stats ARE intended primarily as a tool to assist in RP. This is born out by the design of OD&D, in which they have almost no impact mechanically at all. Even in AD&D their impact was usually pretty small, extreme values were not common, and there wasn't much impact in most cases below a 15 (some exceptions, any CON or DEX bonus was gold, but the actual impact was not great).

If you want to play a guy who has weak muscles, but somehow has a magical enhancement that makes him really strong, then PUT THE POINTS IN STR and depict the character as looking like a weakling, and then be prepared to provide your color/backstory. You may also assume that the GM may leverage this point too. I don't see any reason why you would not want to do this, unless you just don't like ever having any penalties (you can come play HoML, the worst possible attribute you can have is a 0, and most characters get +1 or +2 in most things most of the time).