D&D 5E How do you determine your initial Attributes?

[TwoSix]

I think that can work out just as well in modern games. Most 5e D&D classes are mechanically built around a couple stats in a transparent way (similar to most classes throughout various editions of D&D) and there are mechanically good options for most stats as a primary. So if you roll a high Charisma for instance you look at Warlocks, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Bards. Its just a question of where you want to build your character concept from.

I think it can work in modern games, but doing so feels like an old-school frame of reference.

Most modern games use Playbooks, or something similar to them, which are definitely concept first. Even a modern crunchy game like PF2 only has "choose ability score" as the 5th stop in the character creation process, after concept, ancestry, class, and background.

 

[Yardiff]

This is what I like to do for rolling stats.
Roll 24d6 remove 6 dice (usually the lowest 6) take the remaining 18 dice and group them in 6 groups of 3 dice. If you have 12 or more 1's reroll.

 

[Cadence]

It's a problem you're inventing. It does not state (nor has it ever in any official published book that I know of) that the ability scores of the general populace follows the 3d6 bell curve.

I thought I had remembered something from 1e about that, but was apparently imagining it (or it is hiding).

In 3.5 under making NPCs in the DMG is:

All PCs and all the NPCs described in this section are “elite,” a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above-average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don’t get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die.

which sounds to me like a typical random person would be 3d6. They never come out and say it though.

The ape intelligence in 3.5 is a 2, which seems to fit at least a bit better than a six to me (it's with things like dogs and horses). But the penalty still isn't as big as I would have thought for some of the knowledge rolls (a la @Maxperson a few posts or up).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The ape intelligence in 3.5 is a 2, which seems to fit at least a bit better than a six to me (it's with things like dogs and horses). But the penalty still isn't as big as I would have thought for some of the knowledge rolls (a la @Maxperson a few posts or up).

Non-human great apes are still way smarter than dogs and horses (And dogs are definitely smarter than horses.) At least by the same degree than we are smarter than them, probably more.

Now, is is another matter to what degree it is sensible to attempt to model this with a system that is predominantly meant to be used for creatures of roughly human-like intellect.

 

[Deset Gled]

The ape intelligence in 3.5 is a 2, which seems to fit at least a bit better than a six to me (it's with things like dogs and horses). But the penalty still isn't as big as I would have thought for some of the knowledge rolls (a la @Maxperson a few posts or up).

For 3.5 specifically, (and 3.0 I believe), INT of 3 was required for what would be considered a human-like level of sentience. All animals or similarly non-sentient beings were explicitly at an INT of 2 or 1. INT of >3 was a key mechanical benefit of the "Awakened" spell.

Also in 3.x "Knowledge" skills were "Trained Only", so it doesn't matter if the gorrilla was awakened and had a 25 INT, it still wouldn't be allowed to pass those checks. It's a funny story, but doesn't match mechanics of that edition.

 

[Cadence]

For 3.5 specifically, (and 3.0 I believe), INT of 3 was required for what would be considered a human-like level of sentience. All animals or similarly non-sentient beings were explicitly at an INT of 2 or 1. INT of >3 was a key mechanical benefit of the "Awakened" spell.

Also in 3.x "Knowledge" skills were "Trained Only", so it doesn't matter if the gorrilla was awakened and had a 25 INT, it still wouldn't be allowed to pass those checks. It's a funny story, but doesn't match mechanics of that edition.

I should have been clearer and was mixing and matching my 3.5 reference with Max's 5e one.

Separating out the things that don't think like "people" from a system designed for "people" somehow (maybe needing 3+ to do things and giving animals 2 or lower) makes sense to me.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not aware of it ever being officially stated, but it's a fairly natural assumption to draw from that curve being the original way of generating ability scores (and when 3d6 was abandoned as the default mechanic, this was justified not as a reinterpretation of the scores, but as the average adventurer being above average, relative to the general population).

And I'd argue that this interpretation* isn't a invented problem, because it isn't a problem at all. It's an intuitive interpretation that's entirely compatible with the currently published game. I'd go so far as to say it's more compatible than interpretations that assign greater meaning to the difference between an 8 and a 10, given the small mechanical effect of such a difference. I also think 1 in 216 is a good frequency for the most extreme scores: rare enough to be meaningful, but not so rare as to go essentially unused.

*I'm referring to the overall idea of the the 3d6 bell curve corresponding to the general range of human variation. I 'd avoid mapping to a metric like IQ, which measures a specific interpretation of "intelligence" that won't always match the game's interpretation.

You can draw any kind of assumptions you want, but it's still a strawman. It's just coincidence that there's any correlation at all. In both cases they're just a simplified approximation. I know someone with a 18 intelligence is really, really smart. Just like someone who scored a 180 IQ. Just like people on average have around a 10-11 intelligence and average IQ is a little above 100.

The rules say nothing about the distribution of intelligence in the general population.

 

[Oofta]

I thought I had remembered something from 1e about that, but was apparently imagining it (or it is hiding).
...

Well intelligent people should be very good at hiding in text.

Gygax may or may not have said something along those lines a half century ago, but then again he said a lot of things. It's coincidence that the range of intelligence times 10 roughly coincides with the range of IQ, so personally I find it a useful general approximation.

In any case, ability scores in D&D are a broad oversimplification and IQ is not much (if any) better.

 

[Maxperson]

The ape intelligence in 3.5 is a 2, which seems to fit at least a bit better than a six to me (it's with things like dogs and horses). But the penalty still isn't as big as I would have thought for some of the knowledge rolls (a la @Maxperson a few posts or up).

I actually think a 6 is appropriate for apes. The DM should know that the ape isn't going to have history, arcana, etc. and just not allow those rolls. The outcomes is not in doubt, so the answer is no. However, if that gorilla punches the knight in plate mail and hurts his fist, it's going to be smart enough to reason out that the grabbing that big stick to bash in the side of the knight's helmet will be more effective and involve less knuckle pain.

 

[Cadence]

I actually think a 6 is appropriate for apes. The DM should know that the ape isn't going to have history, arcana, etc. and just not allow those rolls. The outcomes is not in doubt, so the answer is no. However, if that gorilla punches the knight in plate mail and hurts his fist, it's going to be smart enough to reason out that the grabbing that big stick to bash in the side of the knight's helmet will be more effective and involve less knuckle pain.

Does that take a 6 to think of? Why would it need the mental capability of someone who only gets a -2 on history, arcana, etc, checks to know that you don't hit something if it hurt the first time or to know that it can use basic tools? (Some insects and otters and birds use basic tools, and rats are way smart enough to avoid things like that.) Is that even intelligence, or is it wisdom which they have a lot of?