D&D 5E Weird Interpretations for High/Low Ability Scores

[The Crimson Binome]

When someone presents a logical interpretation that is completely valid and factual but doesn't agree with your viewpoint, from what i have seen, you just ignore it. You act as if the argument was never made and never address it. Now, do you do it all the time? No idea, I'm not stalking you or anything.

If someone goes off the deep end into absurdity, even in the middle of an exchange, I'm very likely to Ignore them on the spot. These forums are full of trolls, and foolish me, sometimes I'll take the bait before realizing what it is. (It's hard to see how you might mistake their shenanigans for any sort of logic, rather than the bait that it is, but I'll blame the nature of internet forums for obscuring the tone and context of posts.)

 

[dave2008]

If you use the wrong definition of Dexterity, then it generates the wrong description of the scene where that Dexterity is applied. That is the mechanical consequence.

Thank you for the reply, but that is not a mechanical consequence in game terms. A mechanical consequence would be if: using the wrong definition/ description for dexterity resulted in a penalty or disadvantage being applied. There is no rule that requires this action.

 

[dave2008]

If someone goes off the deep end into absurdity, even in the middle of an exchange, I'm very likely to Ignore them on the spot. These forums are full of trolls, and foolish me, sometimes I'll take the bait before realizing what it is. (It's hard to see how you might mistake their shenanigans for any sort of logic, rather than the bait that it is, but I'll blame the nature of internet forums for obscuring the tone and context of posts.)

The fact that you are calling a logical argument you clearly don't remember "shenanigans" is telling and pretty much proves my point.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Thank you for the reply, but that is not a mechanical consequence in game terms. A mechanical consequence would be if: using the wrong definition/ description for dexterity resulted in a penalty or disadvantage being applied. There is no rule that requires this action.

You seem to be confusing consequences with the procedures for generating those consequences. The whole point of rules (all of them) is to generate consequences. We want to find out what happens next, as a result of the choices we make. Some of those procedures are very complicated, and involve a lot of math before we can find out the consequences. Some of them are very simple.

The quantitative consequence of applying a penalty to a check is not any more or less important than the qualitative consequence of turning something red. They're all just consequences, that inform what happens next.

The fact that one procedure is very short, and doesn't involve math, does not make it any less of a procedure to be followed. Violating that procedure isn't any more (or less) valid than violating one of the more complex procedures.

The fact that you are calling a logical argument you clearly don't remember "shenanigans" is telling and pretty much proves my point.

Seriously, it happens all the time around here. I don't usually resort to the Ignore button until they're so far off the deep end that there is no possible logical response. I have no idea what particular incident you might be thinking about, but I can assure you that I was more than reasonable in how I handled it, if I even saw it in the first place. If you're certain that their argument was logical, then I probably just didn't see it.

 

[Yardiff]

Ah, so you're fine with the exact same effect on a drunken master, because that uses the right words, but not fine with a Mr. Magoo character, that appears to do the exact same thing, but different words are used. Honestly, at the point that the result is identical I'm not sure that a semantics filter actually helps anything.

So this Magoo characters uses a class feature to describe how they function normally via dex? Or is this character an actual drunken master monk class.

 

[Yardiff]

A 20th level character with 20 INT and the Investigation skill has a +11 base bonus to Investigation checks.

A 20th level character with a 5 INT and Expertise in Investigation has a +9 base bonus to Investigation. The same bonus as someone with 16 INT and training in a skill.
This character is not achieving DC 30 results without further help, but they are certainly not hapless.

Why does the first character not also have expertise?

A 20th level character with 20 INT and Expertise in the Investigation skill has a +17 base bonus to Investigation checks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it has no bearing on any game, which has established rules for determining what happens.

Yes, but there are no rules for determining (or for differentiating) "what happens" based on the fluff players narrate. As long as players apply the modifier appropriate to their stat, they can narrate the meaning of that however they want, and the same result occurs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, but there are no rules for determining (or for differentiating) "what happens" based on the fluff players narrate. As long as players apply the modifier appropriate to their stat, they can narrate the meaning of that however they want, and the same result occurs.

There are rules. They're just very simple rules. The rule for what happens when someone makes a Dexterity check, is that they succeed (or fail) at a task because they were very dexterous (or not dexterous enough). The demonstration of agility is extremely important here, because that's the reason why they succeeded (or failed).

If you need to make a Dex check in order to cross a narrow beam, then the result of succeeding on the check is that your agility and coordination allows you to maintain balance. The result is not that you coincidentally happen to place your feet in the right place, even though you didn't notice what was going on; that isn't a possible result of that procedure, because that's not what a Dex check is actually checking. It's not "the same result"; the only similarity that it has to the actual result, is that you didn't fall.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yes, but there are no rules for determining (or for differentiating) "what happens" based on the fluff players narrate. As long as players apply the modifier appropriate to their stat, they can narrate the meaning of that however they want, and the same result occurs.

Very much this. When a player succeeds at a check and I, as DM, ask them what that looked like, the table accepts the player's words as what their character did in the game world. It's not part of my role as DM at that point to "correct" their fluff.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Very much this. When a player succeeds at a check and I, as DM, ask them what that looked like, the table accepts the player's words as what their character did in the game world. It's not part of my role as DM at that point to "correct" their fluff.

No offense or anything, but have you read the rule book? Because the "How To Play" section is pretty clear about who is supposed to describe what.