D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Swarmkeeper]

On ability scores.

PHB 173: "Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability."

From that we know that an ability score has two parts. The first part is the innate capability or magnitude of that ability. The 8 or 18. The second part is the ability score bonus which represents the creature's training and competence related to that ability. That game is explicitly telling us that the ability is more than the bonus.

PHB 173: "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches."

Here it tells us how to read the base ability number(not the bonus). 10-11 is human average, so a 10-11 strength would not be someone who is very strong physically like @Bill Zebub's example. And it tells us that 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches, so we know that an 18 strength is very strong. Conversely, based on those two example we know that a 3 strength is very weak.

PHB 175: "Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force."

Here it tells us that strength measures bodily power, so a PC with a low strength has low bodily power and ability to exert raw physical force, which is the opposite of someone with a powerful build, even if that powerful build somehow has a negative ability modifier.

It's not wrong to play the way Bill Zebub is saying, but it's also not RAW. This is a situation in which to play that way, you have to ignore what RAW is saying and opt into a different playstyle, much the same as when @HammerMan rolls to see how well his NPCs are performing a skill. This sort of playstyle is just not my cup of tea. It sounds like Bill Zebub would have a grand time playing that way and as long as people are having fun, they're doing it right.

For completeness, you forgot to include the section on pg 14 of the PHB entitled Your Character's Abilities.

Lots of "might"s, "probably"s, and "usually"s in the context of what "high" and "low" ability scores mean. Sounds like a player is free to deviate from those descriptions, if they so choose. And, worth noting, that section doesn't draw the line at where a middling score becomes either "high" or "low".

 

[HammerMan]

And, worth noting, that section doesn't draw the line at where a middling score becomes either "high" or "low".

and that alone gives players and DMs some free play with the RAW... in one campaign a 15str could be high and in another it might be an 17 before it is 'high' some might even rule a 13 low...

 

[Cadence]

For completeness, you forgot to include the section on pg 14 of the PHB entitled Your Character's Abilities.

Lots of "mights", "probablys", and "usuallys" in the context of "high" and "low" ability scores. Sounds like a player is free to deviate from those descriptions, if they so choose. And, worth noting, that section doesn't draw the line at where a middling score becomes either "high" or "low".

The border between high and middling or low and middling is probably mushy in real life too I bet. I'm guessing that if you got a bunch of pictures of people who in real life would be 3-5 STR and 16-18 STR, that grade school kids could probably pick out which was which.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

and that alone gives players and DMs some free play with the RAW... in one campaign a 15str could be high and in another it might be an 17 before it is 'high' some might even rule a 13 low...

Right.

Wait... "free play" with what part of RAW?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mean, yeah, at this point it is questionable whether ability scores serve a reasonable purpose. But as long as they exist, I want them to actually represent something; if they don't, I have no need for them.

For me they have a pretty reasonable purpose! I can look at the character sheet and say "Oh, yeah, this guy is strong, smart, clumsy, foolish, and modestly charismatic, I can play that!" Games which rely entirely on pure descriptors I find a bit problematic in general. I find that such games are best employed when you have a very clear idea of the character for some other reason, like a specific milieu or genre in which things can be inferred. I mean it isn't impossible to imagine a 'D&D' where ability scores didn't exist, you could play 5e that way! Certain things would maybe need to be tweaked, like saves, but it could be done. In such a game proficiencies and class/race/whatever abilities would have to suffice, along with narrative description and extrapolation. It just becomes harder to succinctly describe a PC.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For me they have a pretty reasonable purpose! I can look at the character sheet and say "Oh, yeah, this guy is strong, smart, clumsy, foolish, and modestly charismatic, I can play that!" Games which rely entirely on pure descriptors I find a bit problematic in general. I find that such games are best employed when you have a very clear idea of the character for some other reason, like a specific milieu or genre in which things can be inferred. I mean it isn't impossible to imagine a 'D&D' where ability scores didn't exist, you could play 5e that way! Certain things would maybe need to be tweaked, like saves, but it could be done. In such a game proficiencies and class/race/whatever abilities would have to suffice, along with narrative description and extrapolation. It just becomes harder to succinctly describe a PC.

Yes, sure, I am not really disagreeing with you, but if you have read any of the racial ASI threads, you should know that the viewpoint that the abilities don't really represent anything beyond the mechanical bonuses is pretty common.

 

[HammerMan]

For me they have a pretty reasonable purpose! I can look at the character sheet and say "Oh, yeah, this guy is strong, smart, clumsy, foolish, and modestly charismatic, I can play that!" Games which rely entirely on pure descriptors I find a bit problematic in general. I find that such games are best employed when you have a very clear idea of the character for some other reason, like a specific milieu or genre in which things can be inferred.

I know this is out in the weeds, but paper and dice World of darkness has stats (not exact but kinda like D&D) with a rating of 1-5 (some big thing are better then human and 6+ but think about it like monsters having over 20 str) but the LARP (minds eye theater) had just words... you had X number of strength traits... and you spent them, so if you used all 8 of your strength traits you ended the night weaker then someone who started with 3 but only spent 1... it was weird.

 

[Oofta]

But you understand that this is not a clear line? I mean, in 4e at least, it is a great benefit to focus fire. There's no ability check or skill check that can be applied to decide if the party does this or not. It is PURE player skill/knowledge and understanding of tactics. I mean, yes, a group could say "well, all our characters are dumb and foolish, so we will use bad tactics" but you certainly cannot enforce such a thing, nor even really ask for it. Nor does it really feel terribly appropriate. I like character skill and attributes mattering, but there will never be a clear line.

Of course player knowledge and skill matters. But there is a line, admittedly a fuzzy one. I see player tactics making a huge difference in the games I play, I've run simultaneous groups that were the same level and challenges and 1 group was significantly more effective than the other. On the other hand I think you cross a line if you are selling the DM on an idea of how your approach is so amazingly good that there is no need for a check whether or not it would actually work in real life.

I'm picking a bit on the "tank trap" idea here, but even if the PC did come up with that idea did they know how to execute it correctly? Would it really be useful against the opponent you are facing as opposed to other defenses? Why is it different than simply stating that you're setting up a defensive line with sharpened posts that will be different to cross? That, and if you PC background is that of a sheltered acolyte who has never read a book on warfare in their life, it strains credulity a bit.

So there's nothing wrong with coming up with good tactics. I just don't care for it if the benefit gained is too overwhelming or powerful.

 

[Oofta]

I'm glad I could surprise!

Yes, but we don't expect players to be experts like their PCs. I do not penalize them for that nor do I reward them for "extra" language.


Again, this is a matter of preference for the player. Roleplaying, as the 5e rules indicate, can be done in 1st person, in 3rd person, or a combination of both. Not all players are comfortable with 1st person but that doesn't make them less effective at the game of 5e D&D. Nor should they be somehow penalized or excluded because of that preference. My job, as DM, is to spread the spotlight around. I want every player involved as much as they want to be. I suppose this "say what their PC is saying" preference could also be a preference for the table, though, with a requirement that everyone speak in 1st person as their character - and, hey, that's fine if the whole group is on board from the start.


Interesting. So you are saying that @Oofta and @clearstream favor... Magic Words?!?

I don't believe in magic words. I also don't believe in auto success should change to potential failure because a player rolls the dice if the action declared and taken is substantially the same.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, sure, I am not really disagreeing with you, but if you have read any of the racial ASI threads, you should know that the viewpoint that the abilities don't really represent anything beyond the mechanical bonuses is pretty common.

I'm assuming that is coming from the people who claim that its 'fine' that there are D&D races which seem to be based on racist views of various real world ethnicities. In that context the argument is so incoherent I won't even give it the time of day, it is just rubbish.

Anyway, I don't think all this needs to be any big issue. If I write '11' on my character sheet for CHA or even STR, it isn't really saying a whole lot. In the case of STR maybe I'm fairly bulky and look like I MIGHT have a 14, but I just don't. Perhaps I'm just really out of shape, etc. There's certainly wiggle room there. Likewise my 11 CHA character could be really good looking, he's just socially inept, or a jerk, or maybe even just has a particular upbringing that makes people see him in a bad light.

There are a lot of RPGs that started to eschew 'mental' stats even back in the 70's for exactly this kind of reason. It is just really hard to say what exactly they characterize. STR is pretty concrete, you can at the very least explain how it functions. INT? At best it represents a diverse set of attributes which aren't even all closely related to each other in the real world. You can depict it, for sure, in RP, but its very squishy. Its also highly subject to being overridden by player skill, so a lot of games just left it out. Its a pretty valid approach, just not one D&D ever adopted.