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

[Oofta]

I wonder how many people play a low Int, Wis, and to some extent Cha as just the player's abilities with the character's modifier if a roll is needed. A player may be a genius and playing a fighter with a dumpstat of Int. There is no real penalty of playing the game with the strategy and meta gaming of how to go about things and piece clues together. It seems that every PC is the extension of the player in these mental abilities so the only problems in when roleplaying something less.

This can be tough. If I'm playing a PC with low int or wisdom, I try to not make the intelligent or wise moves. However the problem is that there are times when the guy playing the genius level PC doesn't see something obvious or doesn't understand tactics at all. Sometimes I'll say something out of character, sometimes I won't. It's why I rarely play low intelligence PCs. Unwise PCs it's easier because I just play them as not picking up on clues or being reckless and so on.

But it's also one of he reasons I dislike challenges that challenge the player only. If the sphinx asks the riddle "What has a golden head and a golden tail but no body?"* You're challenging the players, not the wizard with the 20 intelligence who really should be able to figure it out with no difficulty.

On the other hand a lot of times people seem to want to play against type as wish fulfillment. In my experience a lot of people who play wizards tend (and this is only a tendency) to not understand how to use their powers effectively. Doesn't make anyone less worthy as an individual if they aren't particularly smart, but I do find myself biting my tongue about how they have spell X and if they had done Y it would have been so much more effective. But I don't tell people how to run their PCs except occasionally with newbies if they seem to be struggling, even then I tread lightly. In any case, there are always going to be limitations, going both ways, of how well we can represent our PCs.

*A gold coin.

 

[Voadam]

I wonder how many people play a low Int, Wis, and to some extent Cha as just the player's abilities with the character's modifier if a roll is needed. A player may be a genius and playing a fighter with a dumpstat of Int. There is no real penalty of playing the game with the strategy and meta gaming of how to go about things and piece clues together. It seems that every PC is the extension of the player in these mental abilities so the only problems in when roleplaying something less.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I also want the stats to do some work in describing and-or outlining the character both physically and mentally, at least in general or comparitive terms. Further, I expect players to at least make an attempt to play to their characters' stats; particularly if-when those stats are low enough to impose limitations. Otherwise, the commitment made when the low number was put in that stat isn't being honoured.

Since the rules of the game don’t specify any roleplaying requirements assigned to various stat numbers, no commitment is being made when one assigns a low score to a stat, unless such a restriction is part of the social contract at the table. If it is, I agree that players should stick to the commitments they make. But there’s no such requirement at my table.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Side note: I agree it isn’t usually, but a player can always choose to roll their stats in order (if rolling is allowed of course), so there is the option to let randomly generated stats determine what kind of character you get, if you want that.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wonder how many people play a low Int, Wis, and to some extent Cha as just the player's abilities with the character's modifier if a roll is needed. A player may be a genius and playing a fighter with a dumpstat of Int. There is no real penalty of playing the game with the strategy and meta gaming of how to go about things and piece clues together. It seems that every PC is the extension of the player in these mental abilities so the only problems in when roleplaying something less.

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. 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.

 

[Cadence]

Since the rules of the game don’t specify any roleplaying requirements assigned to various stat numbers, no commitment is being made when one assigns a low score to a stat, unless such a restriction is part of the social contract at the table. If it is, I agree that players should stick to the commitments they make. But there’s no such requirement at my table.

Now I'm trying to remember if any of the editions made folks role play what the stats are in a specific way.

The 5e PHB does say players should take them into account when flashing out the appearance and personality (pg. 14).

Chapter 7 also seems to act like players will take the scores in to account: "Is a character muscle-bound and insightful? Brilliant and charming? Nimble and hardy? Ability scores define these qualities-a creature's assets as well as weaknesses."

But since there's no penalty for a PC having no personality at all, it would be odd to penalize them for not following the ability descriptions in whatever personality they did have.

One could play a 6 Int character as Shelock Holmes, a Sherlock Holmes that was irrevocably cursed by fortune and just had a -6 penalty on all Int related rolls compared to the 18 Int.

 

[Oofta]

Now I'm trying to remember if any of the editions made folks role play what the stats are in a specific way.

The 5e PHB does say players should take them into account when flashing out the appearance and personality (pg. 14).

Chapter 7 also seems to act like players will take the scores in to account: "Is a character muscle-bound and insightful? Brilliant and charming? Nimble and hardy? Ability scores define these qualities-a creature's assets as well as weaknesses."

But since there's no penalty for a PC having no personality at all, it would be odd to penalize them for not following the ability descriptions in whatever personality they did have.

One could play a 6 Int character as Shelock Holmes, a Sherlock Holmes that was irrevocably cursed by fortune and just had a -6 penalty on all Int related rolls compared to the 18 Int.

That is going to be very table dependent. If someone tried to run a 6 intelligence Sherlock Holmes, we'd be having a chat and they would be making intelligence checks far more than even an average intelligence PC.

Believing you're a genius does not make you one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Now I'm trying to remember if any of the editions made folks role play what the stats are in a specific way.

The 5e PHB does say players should take them into account when flashing out the appearance and personality (pg. 14).

Chapter 7 also seems to act like players will take the scores in to account: "Is a character muscle-bound and insightful? Brilliant and charming? Nimble and hardy? Ability scores define these qualities-a creature's assets as well as weaknesses."

I think there’s a difference though between taking a character’s scores into account when fleshing out their appearance and personality, versus restricting what a character can or can’t do based on their scores.

But since there's no penalty for a PC having no personality at all, it would be odd to penalize them for not following the ability descriptions in whatever personality they did have.

One could play a 6 Int character as Shelock Holmes, a Sherlock Holmes that was irrevocably cursed by fortune and just had a -6 penalty on all Int related rolls compared to the 18 Int.

I don’t think one really could play a character as Sherlock Holmes. Setting aside the fact that many of Sherlock Holmes’ “deductions” are only really possible with authorial knowledge, the player being able to deduce the correct solution from the available data requires that the DM actually includes all the necessary information to make the correct deduction and narrates it in a way the player correctly understands.

 

[Cadence]

I think there’s a difference though between taking a character’s scores into account when fleshing out their appearance and personality, versus restricting what a character can or can’t do based on their scores.

Is it do, or do well? Anyway, in a high variance game like d20, they could luck into/out of just about anything with the dice .

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

I don’t think one really could play a character as Sherlock Holmes. Setting aside the fact that many of Sherlock Holmes’ “deductions” are only really possible with authorial knowledge, the player being able to deduce the correct solution from the available data requires that the DM actually includes all the necessary information to make the correct deduction and narrates it in a way the player correctly understands.

I guess replace the specificity of Sherlock Holmes with anything that would be classically Int based and want knowledge and investigation rolls.

 

[Voadam]

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.