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

[CleverNickName]

Smart is what you make it, I suppose. I mean--on one hand, dogs didn't invent the atomic bomb. But on the other hand, dogs didn't invent the atomic bomb.

That's it, the most succinct, clever, and profound thing I'll ever write. It's all over for me. It's all downhill from here.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's it, the most succinct, clever, and profound thing I'll ever write. It's all over for me. It's all downhill from here.

Say it once, and people might agree.

Say it twice, and people might begin to suspect that you're an agent of BigDog(tm).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Smart is what you make it, I suppose. I mean--on one hand, dogs didn't invent the atomic bomb. But on the other hand, dogs didn't invent the atomic bomb.

No, that was Schrödinger's cat.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It's one thing to not play your PC like a R-word stereotype, but the nitty of what should a low int look like is up for debate?

It took me until this point in the thread to understand. I was wondering why you all were speaking of rape all the time.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

NOTE: Personal opinion on how/what Ability Scores are meant to represent in the game.

One thing I'm noticing; some people are surmising that "You could be a very bright guy and amazing at math...but be horrible at reading comprehension, logical thought and general knowledge about other non-math stuff, so you'd have a 7 Int". Basically "A low-int PC that is really good at X aspect of Int, and really bad at Y and Z aspects of Int".

To which I say...no. That's not what the Ability Scores represent in the game. They represent the "averages" of all aspects of what make up that Ability Score. The more you get to the extremes, the more the person is 'just good' or 'just bad' at everything related to that Ability Score. It's the middle area where you can get the wider swings of things.

In this regard, "I have a 7 Int, but it's Int 13 with Math" doesn't work in D&D; that would be an Int 10 PC with the descriptor in the characters "personality notes" of "Really good at math, but kinda sucks at reading and logic, and his memory is...'selective'". Scores can be noted 'as if' for more clarification (re: "Really good at math, Int 13; but bad at reading, logic and memory things, Int 7"). If a character had an actual score of 7, they would be bad at all of the above. Not horrible, but easily noticeable by anyone with an Int 10 or better. The PC might still have one particular "quirk" that is a 'good Int thing', but it would be pretty specific (re: "Int 7, but never forgets a face and name").

Anyway, just an observation I found in this thread. The Ability Scores are like HP's... meant to be abstract. But the closer you get to the extreme ends, to more "comprehensively good/bad in every way" it is. An Int 3 PC is a moron. Period. They are really REALLY bad at anything relating to what Int describes in the game. An Int 18 PC is a super-genius. Period. They are really REALLY good at everything relating to what Int describes in the game. An Int 10 PC is average, with perhaps one super-amazing specialty, but every other thing being quite sub-par to average.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[DND_Reborn]

Intelligence, in the real world, has a variety of meanings, from the more specific IQ to Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences of which IQ is just a small portion (probably a combination of verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical, leaving the other nine mostly untouched).

I've also known many people who are quite intelligent in terms of the depth of their thought, but either have a difficult time translating their thinking to words/actions, or slower in their processing. And I've known people who are extremely intelligent in other forms of intelligence--say bodily-kinesthetic or spatial-visual, etc--but not as much in terms of verbal or logical. I mean, how many of us know someone (or are someone) who "sucks at math" but is highly intelligent in other ways?

But let us not forget that D&D's Ability scores are just that: abilities. I used to think they were wrongly named, and should be called "Attributes," but if we instead take the word literally--Abilities--then we can see them as a character's capacity to enact actions through various means or aspects of themselves.

So INT doesn't have to be the depth of a character's thinking, but their ability to process certain types of information, mostly related to logic and conceptual thinking. WIS, in a way, covers some of the other forms of Gardner's intelligences: existential, spatial-visual, intrapersonal, maybe naturalistic. And CHA touches about interpersonal (social-emotional) and perhaps musical intelligences, and of course DEX covers bodily-kinesthetic.

So a low INT character need not be an idiot, they're just bad at logical processing, and especially if they're higher in WIS or CHA, is "intelligent" in different ways.

EDIT: I would also add that a high INT character could be an idiot - perhaps emotionally clueless or lacking imagination or intuition. I think the mistake is in thinking of INT as all aspects of intelligence, rather than a more narrow band of rational-logical thinking and processing.

Very well said.

As I see it (as I also used to think Attributes was a better term), the difference is primarily:

Attribute: a measure of a characteristic about something or someone. In D&D terms, literally how strong, smart, etc. you are.

Ability: a measure of the effectiveness to which you can apply something (really, an Attribute). In D&D terms, how well you are at applying whatever "strength", "intelligence", etc. you have.

An INT 18 PC would be very adept at using their Intelligence (however much they have) effectively, not imply they are necessarily that "smart".

Personally, I get caught up a lot in terms of thinking of abilities as attributes because in prior editions, they really were more being a measure of how much you had, not how well you used it.

For the most part, the 5E interpretation is ok (not quite what I prefer, but whatever...), and it supports why a gnome with a STR 20 can benefit to get a +5 to attack and damage rolls. (I am fine, honestly, with that part... it is the carrying 600 lb. I don't like....).

 

[Oofta]

Hiya!

NOTE: Personal opinion on how/what Ability Scores are meant to represent in the game.

One thing I'm noticing; some people are surmising that "You could be a very bright guy and amazing at math...but be horrible at reading comprehension, logical thought and general knowledge about other non-math stuff, so you'd have a 7 Int". Basically "A low-int PC that is really good at X aspect of Int, and really bad at Y and Z aspects of Int".

To which I say...no. That's not what the Ability Scores represent in the game. They represent the "averages" of all aspects of what make up that Ability Score. The more you get to the extremes, the more the person is 'just good' or 'just bad' at everything related to that Ability Score. It's the middle area where you can get the wider swings of things.

In this regard, "I have a 7 Int, but it's Int 13 with Math" doesn't work in D&D; that would be an Int 10 PC with the descriptor in the characters "personality notes" of "Really good at math, but kinda sucks at reading and logic, and his memory is...'selective'". Scores can be noted 'as if' for more clarification (re: "Really good at math, Int 13; but bad at reading, logic and memory things, Int 7"). If a character had an actual score of 7, they would be bad at all of the above. Not horrible, but easily noticeable by anyone with an Int 10 or better. The PC might still have one particular "quirk" that is a 'good Int thing', but it would be pretty specific (re: "Int 7, but never forgets a face and name").

Anyway, just an observation I found in this thread. The Ability Scores are like HP's... meant to be abstract. But the closer you get to the extreme ends, to more "comprehensively good/bad in every way" it is. An Int 3 PC is a moron. Period. They are really REALLY bad at anything relating to what Int describes in the game. An Int 18 PC is a super-genius. Period. They are really REALLY good at everything relating to what Int describes in the game. An Int 10 PC is average, with perhaps one super-amazing specialty, but every other thing being quite sub-par to average.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Being good at one aspect for me is reflected by proficiency and expertise. So someone might have a low intelligence but having always been fascinated by history have a better score than someone with a higher base intelligence that was not trained. Of course in the real world we get what's call savant syndrome, but there's no way the game is going to represent every aspect of humanity with it's simplified rules.

 

[Hussar]

Is there an actual issue though? Has anyone actually said that playing low int characters as ableist caricatures is a good idea?

I don't think anyone has actually. So, fair enough, message received and understood. Fantastic.

 

[renbot]

The entire premise of this thread is a nearly perfect example of a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The entire premise of this thread is a nearly perfect example of a solution in search of a problem.

Mod Note:

A single sentence of criticism without being constructive? This post is a nearly perfect example of threadcrapping.