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

[doctorbadwolf]

I should expound that INT 8 (the lowest a PC will usually begin with IME) is by no means "stupid", it is slightly below "average" (whatever that means to you).

This I agree with.

The average is 8-12, not strictly the exact number 10.

 

[Voadam]

I would slightly quibble with this.

I am happy to quibble

I think that there are several issues going on here that are only being addressed obliquely. Given I don't particularly care to take sides, I will outline them as I see them:

A. The "dump stat" problem. It's not enough to say that there might be an issue with "dumping" intelligence in 5e; instead, I think it is more correct to say that 5e incentivizes dumping intelligence to an extent we have not otherwise seen. Simply putt, there are the two "god stats" (Dex, Cha). Then there is the "everyone can use it" stat (Con). Then there's wisdom, which, at a minimum, people like for the passive perception and because it's one of the primary saves.

That leaves only two dump stats for most players- intelligence and strength. As strength has real mechanical effects,

Unless you are playing a character who uses another stat for their attacks like if you use a dex based finesse or ranged weapon or magical attacks. Then the mechanics are pretty much armor limitations.

and, for the most part, intelligence doesn't, it becomes an easy choice. In other words, unless you're a wizard, wizard-adjacent (like EK or AT), or a very niche case (Mastermind Rogue, for example), intelligence is always going to be the dump stat.

Unless you are a heavy armor fighter, paladin, or cleric in which case dex is a great choice to dump stat.

Which means that if you allow people to choose to have low intelligences with absolutely no consequences for that choice, then they will always choose to take the low intelligence and say, "But I'm naturally cunning and a good tactician!" Or come up with other reasons to justify playing the character the same way that they play their 18 intelligence character. There are innumerable threads on this.

Depends on the player and their character concept and their approach to the game. Plenty of people take the social activity of D&D as a time to turn off some critical thinking and to just drink beer and roll dice charging into combat with an axe or throwing fireballs as a release without thinking about complex tactics. Others will go with a specific character concept for how they approach things and try to get into the specifics of that role. For some competitively mentally engaging with the challenges of the game in an OSR skilled play fashion is a big part of the fun.

So for mixed groups in which this is a problem, there are usually only four solutions:
1. A table agreement that you can't dump intelligence.
2. A table agreement that you will appropriately play (depending on table norms) the intelligence.
3. House rules that make intelligence more valuable.
3. The DM, with extreme prejudice, employing tactics that target intelligence and intelligence saves until (1) and/or (2) and/or 3 happens. "Hey look kids! Big Ben! Parliament! An intellect devourer!"

I am not quite sure what you mean by mixed groups here.

If you mean mixed of some want the stats roleplayed and some don't want to there is also the solution of a reverse of 2, a table agreement that roleplay is not restricted by stats instead is restricted by it. In both cases 2 is problem solved by clearly stating the agreement for this game that will be used even though there is no preferred style for everybody at the table.

B. The "role playing" vs. "roll playing" debate. This is now more than 40 years old, and I don't think we will get very far in this more recent iteration. I do think that there is an interesting conversation to be had about the appropriate boundaries regarding roleplaying (similar to what we have seen with acting), but I do not think that the way that this thread has presented itself makes it an ideal topid to explore that discussion.

I would say that most tables I have played at that have been heavy into "role playing" to tend to incorporate the physical abilities into the character conception, and that we have the same divide. In other words, people who aren't taking the physical abilities into account for RPing say, "Look, we don't do this for the physical abilities, so why should we for the mental ones!" While the people who do it for the mental ones say, "Look, we do it for the physical abilities, so of course we do it for the mental ones!"

Two ships passing in the night.

I think there is another fundamental divide.

Roleplaying the stats on the sheet versus roleplaying a separate narrative concept independent of the stats on the sheet. You can be a complete actor and ignore the stats on the sheet and do an intense roleplay role. You can be a complete actor and take the stats on the sheet as your role.

As a player generally you only see how the other players are roleplaying, you generally have no idea what their actual mental stats are unless they tell you (although you can generally infer they will have good ones to support their class's abilities and other inferences can be made from checks called out at the table).

As a fellow player what primarily comes across is not whether they are playing their stats or not, but how they are roleplaying their character. Same as for alignment.

 

[Faolyn]

Another thing that could be important is the theory that there are multiple types of intelligences. The main 8 seem to be (using 5e terminology):

Musical-rhythmic/harmonic: The Performance skill or proficiency in a musical instrument.
Visual-spatial: Wisdom
Linguistic-verbal: Intelligence
Logical-mathematical: Intelligence
Bodily-kinesthetic: The Athletics and Acrobatics skills.
Interpersonal: The Insight skill
Intrapersonal: Wisdom
Naturalistic: The Animal Handling and Nature skills

Other possible types of intelligences include:

Existential: Wisdom, but also possibly the Arcana or Religion skills.
Creative: Any sort of tool proficiency
Collaberative: Pure roleplay!

So there's definitely room for having a smart character with a low Int score!

 

[Oofta]

Really? Note that there is a difference between not many, than none at all.

Strength-
1. Has an effect on "to hit" and "damage" (when you don't use a finesse weapon)- sure, you can avoid it with dex, but PAM/GWM and big ol' weapons is an advantage for some.
2. Carrying capacity. I know, some people don't care about encumbrance ... but a lot do. That's a mechanical effect.
3. Grappling.
4. Heavy armor.
5. Jumping distances.

Etc. Look, I'm not here to really debate this- but ... just no. I can't agree with what you're trying to sell.

My wife gave her rogue an 8 strength. Walls have become her nemesis.

 

[Voadam]

Really? Note that there is a difference between not many, than none at all.

Strength-
1. Has an effect on "to hit" and "damage" (when you don't use a finesse weapon)- sure, you can avoid it with dex, but PAM/GWM and big ol' weapons is an advantage for some.
2. Carrying capacity. I know, some people don't care about encumbrance ... but a lot do. That's a mechanical effect.
3. Grappling.
4. Heavy armor.
5. Jumping distances.

Etc. Look, I'm not here to really debate this- but ... just no. I can't agree with what you're trying to sell.

And don't forget athletics checks.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And don't forget athletics checks.

That was under the general rubric of "etc." I could have gotten even more granular.

I am not making some big "pro-strength" argument. Instead, I am simply noting that in the very way that 5e is set up, intelligence is the least essential attribute. As I point out, strength is also pretty inessential, but it does have individual mechanical effects due to it being a physical stat. Less important than dexterity and constitution, but more than intelligence.

It's like running from a bear- you don't have to be Usain Bolt (Dex/Charisma), you just have to be a little faster than the slowest guy (intelligence). That's strength. Terrible, but still usually better for dumping than intelligence.

It doesn't mean you can't make a character that avoids the usual rules - we can all come up with special cases. But it's pretty impressive that I'm getting people seriously arguing, "Oh noes! Intelligence is totes never dumped! Or strength! In 5e? I am shocked, shocked to hear someone imply that!"

The internet. Have to love it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the average int of the party in my game is 11.

 

[Laurefindel]

My wife gave her rogue an 8 strength. Walls have become her nemesis.

That’s why rogues were given two skills to apply expertise in. One for a skill of their choice, and one for Athletics. Not to excel in athletics, but to « not suck »

 

[payn]

I think the average int of the party in my game is 11.

because its 1 more?

 

[Remathilis]

I think the average int of the party in my game is 11.

Players or characters?