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

[DND_Reborn]

The question is whether the mental/social stats should be similar in being strictly mechanical restraints or should be roleplaying restraints as well.

Precisely the question. My vote is mental/social abilities should be as restrained as is reasonably possible, and also supported (if the PC's score is better than the player), when applicable. I don't want to remove role-playing entirely, but I also don't want a player to be able to dump INT or CHA and then use their own better abilities in place of them. It is, in essence, sort of like cheating IMO. But, again, that is just my POV.

The physical scores are completely separated, so a very strong player who is playing a low-STR PC can't use their own physical abilities to supplant the PCs, so why allow it with mental/social abilities?

 

[Voadam]

The physical scores are completely separated, so a very strong player who is playing a low-STR PC can't use their own physical abilities to supplant the PCs, so why allow it with mental/social abilities?

Because engaging mentally and socially effectively in the game is part of the fun of the game for those who enjoy doing so. This would hold true whether playing a smart bard build or a tank warrior build.

It is true that completely abstracted things are based on mechanics. But I would expect in a LARP that a player using their actual physical abilities in swordfighting would be part of the fun for many. Talking in character and coming up with ideas can be similar.

As a DM I am happy with more cool social interaction and critical thinking engagement on the parts of all of my players, I don't want those activities limited to specific character builds.

It does not enhance my aesthetic enjoyment to see roleplay characterization limited to match stats on a sheet to accomodate a class build. I have no preference for the cool RDJ Sherlock roleplay portrayal to be limited to an int or cha build mechanical character concept. I want a player to have fun with both their roleplay concept and for their characters to be roughly equal mechanically.

I do not see the mental and social engagement parts as part of the character power balance, I see them as something for anybody to engage in and the combat power balance to be a separate pool entirely.

If I thought of combat effectiveness, coming up with ideas, and talking as a zero sum pool I could conceive of thinking of an effective character in all three as cheating compared to others who are not, but I don't view D&D that way. Everybody fights on an even basis, everyone should be on an even basis and able to participate if they want in the other arenas too.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because engaging mentally and socially effectively in the game is part of the fun of the game for those who enjoy doing so. This would hold true whether playing a smart bard build or a tank warrior build.

It is true that completely abstracted things are based on mechanics. But I would expect in a LARP that a player using their actual physical abilities in swordfighting would be part of the fun for many. Talking in character and coming up with ideas can be similar.

As a DM I am happy with more cool social interaction and critical thinking engagement on the parts of all of my players, I don't want those activities limited to specific character builds.

It does not enhance my aesthetic enjoyment to see roleplay characterization limited to match stats on a sheet to accomodate a class build. I have no preference for the cool RDJ Sherlock roleplay portrayal to be limited to an int or cha build mechanical character concept. I want a player to have fun with both their roleplay concept and for their characters to be roughly equal mechanically.

I do not see the mental and social engagement parts as part of the character power balance, I see them as something for anybody to engage in and the combat power balance to be a separate pool entirely.

If I thought of combat effectiveness, coming up with ideas, and talking as a zero sum pool I could conceive of thinking of an effective character in all three as cheating compared to others who are not, but I don't view D&D that way. Everybody fights on an even basis, everyone should be on an even basis and able to participate if they want in the other arenas too.

They don't fight on an even basis when those who just dump their mental/social stats get to have extra physical stats. I'm firmly in the camp of Play your stats. You the player might give a well reasoned argument. Your low intelligent/charisma character doesnt. The lack of decent social rules in D&D shouldnt be an excuse to dump them even further.

 

[DND_Reborn]

They don't fight on an even basis when those who just dump their mental/social stats get to have extra physical stats. I'm firmly in the camp of Play your stats. You the player might give a well reasoned argument. Your low intelligent/charisma character doesnt. The lack of decent social rules in D&D shouldnt be an excuse to dump them even further.

Well said!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Quibble: it's 8-13, with the true average being 10.5.

Sure, fair.

 

[Voadam]

They don't fight on an even basis when those who just dump their mental/social stats get to have extra physical stats. I'm firmly in the camp of Play your stats. You the player might give a well reasoned argument. Your low intelligent/charisma character doesnt. The lack of decent social rules in D&D shouldnt be an excuse to dump them even further.

I am not really picturing where you think the imbalance is going to actually show up. Depending on the class dump statting dex or strength works too so it seems to not favor the way you are implying.

Can you give an example of where you think the imbalance would work out with the 15/15/15/8/8/8 array?

A heavy armor cleric can dump stat dexterity, intelligence, and charisma.

A fighter can dump stat charisma, intelligence, and dexterity if he goes classic heavy weapons.

A sorcerer can dump stat strength, intelligence, and charisma.

A wizard can dump stat strength, wisdom, and charisma.

A warlock can dump stat strength, intelligence, and wisdom.

A rogue can dump stat their choices of strength, intelligence, wisdom, or charisma and make it work.

All of these seem straightforward optimization and seem balanced against each other for combat.

The classes that could be behind the curve are the MAD ones, a melee valor bard for instance can dump stat intelligence and Charisma but would be hit hard by the third dump stat.

A non-heavy armor cleric is hurt hard if they dump stat dex, dumping strength is an option for a more caster focused build.

If you only go with one dump stat - say the standard array - then anybody but the wizard and some specific subclasses can dump int. Anybody but charisma classes can dump stat charisma. Anybody who does not use strength for armor and attacking can dump str.

Otherwise SAD casters become the best roleplay and combat options having a class stat for combat power doing double duty as either social or cunning.

Everybody else has to divert a lot more away from their MAD requirements for baseline combat power to add in the one or two roleplay stats. And the MAD classes that don't depend on charisma or intelligence at all are the worst.

Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock the excellent bare-knucle brawler monk investigator concept is therefore going to be the most spread thin stats build in the game watering down the monk combat for the roleplay if you want to also hit the roleplay thinking and banter aspects. High charisma and intelligence Warlock/Sorcerer/Wizard RDJ Sherlock is fairly trivial to pull off at full class combat powers to get both the roleplay witty banter and the logic, although at the cost of really crappy punching combat with the spellslinger build.

 

[Gammadoodler]

For those who follow Critical Role, Jester is absolutely the last person I would go to for advice, despite having a very high Wisdom score.

Ahh. So it appears you do not value fun.

 

[Hussar]

I will just point out again that is NOT what the OP says.

And I will also point out that it's not something that many people do, not for reasons of morality, but because such characters are boring and unfun.

So what we have is an original post accusing lots of people of a crime they did not commit.

I just reread the OP. I'm really not seeing any accusations to anyone specific. Just a general admonition to not be a dick.

And, while you might not have seen people playing such characters, I certainly have.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I just reread the OP. I'm really not seeing any accusations to anyone specific. Just a general admonition to not be a dick.

It's in the thread title for a start. Admonishment is not a good way to convince anyone to change their behaviour, and it's certainly not a good way to make friends with people who are not engaged in that behaviour.

Not to mention, conflating "stupidity" with specific learning difficulties is at least as offensive as the type of role-playing the OP is criticising. Speaking as someone who has a SPLD (dyslexia, dyspraxia, mild Asperger's) and teaches students with SPLDs I found it quite offensive and ignorant.

And, while you might not have seen people playing such characters, I certainly have.

Dicks will be Dicks. They know what they are doing. Telling them not to be Dicks just makes them more determined to be a Dick.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, message policing and nit picking verbiage is not terribly productive. Understanding the intent here isn't exactly rocket science. But, hey, let's waste another thirty pages wanking over poor writing rather than addressing the issue at hand.