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

[Guest 6801328]

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.

What a crock of rubbish. The "result" you're describing is just a difference in narrative fluff.

Basically you're arguing that the rules dictate that only certain stories...which just happen to be the sort you prefer...may be told. Of all your theories that rigidly straight-jacket the game and limit the narrative to pre-established tropes, this one takes the prize.

As long as players who want to creatively interpret ability scores understand that doing so doesn't let them make an end run around the rules (the actual rules) then the only impact is aesthetic. And while I get that some people might be turned off by non-traditional aesthetics, really the only justification for prohibiting it is personal preference.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Can I not describe a drunken master without taking a class? Can I not have an apparently bumbling character without a class feature?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Can I not describe a drunken master without taking a class? Can I not have an apparently bumbling character without a class feature?

No. If you want to have a woodsy character you MUST roll Ranger.

Understood?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The fact remains that the rulebooks explain what the mechanics are meant to represent in the fiction. Now if you want in your game to describe fireballs as cotton candy and resulting fire damage as sugar overdose then go ahead, but that certainly is not the default approach nor what the writers intended.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The fact remains that the rulebooks explain what the mechanics are meant to represent in the fiction. Now if you want in your game to describe fireballs as cotton candy and resulting fire damage as sugar overdose then go ahead, but that certainly is not the default approach nor what the writers intended.

Does this mean you’ve never narrated anything in a way that strays from the default description?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Does this mean you’ve never narrated anything in a way that strays from the default description?

I certainly have. I also use plenty of houserules. Same thing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The fact remains that the rulebooks explain what the mechanics are meant to represent in the fiction. Now if you want in your game to describe fireballs as cotton candy and resulting fire damage as sugar overdose then go ahead, but that certainly is not the default approach nor what the writers intended.

The rules also have a lot of descriptions that are much more vague and open to interpretations. Not everything is the fireball spell. You've selected a very clear descriptions and progressed as if this was the norm. It's not.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Funny, I'm playing a Kensai monk at the moment. Anticipating becoming a Kensai, at 1st and 2nd level I used a staff and called it a "wooden sword", because my character had not yet earned the right to use a real sword.

Two things to note:
- The rules clearly say "staff" but I called it a "wooden sword" and narrated combat as such. (The length of said sword was never a factor, but if for some reason the distinction became important I would not have given myself any special advantages. In fact would have taken a disadvantage if, say, 6-8' pole was needed. In which case I would have said, "Nope, my sword isn't that long." Conversely, if for some reason we couldn't bring anything longer than 4' through a tiny tunnel, I would have narrated some other reason why my "sword" got left behind. So ZERO mechanical difference.")
- Although the rules say my character didn't have sword proficiency, I described it as abiding by the rules of her sensei to not use one.

I wonder if some of the people here think I was breaking the rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rules also have a lot of descriptions that are much more vague and open to interpretations. Not everything is the fireball spell. You've selected a very clear descriptions and progressed as if this was the norm. It's not.

The thread is about ability scores. They have pretty clear descriptions.

One huge downside of this sort of wild reinterpretation is that you lose the coherent framework for the rule-lore interfrace. Now if you houserule dexterity always to mean being lucky across the board then that is one thing. But if it can mean one thing at one moment for one character and something completely different for another, then the rules no longer have any connection to the lore. And when you have to decide what checks to call or how houserule an unexpected situation you no longer have the tools to do so. You can no longer think 'oh it would make sense that this test would be easier for agile characters, let's use dexterity check' because dexterity no lenger means being agile. One character's high dexterity means that they're really clumsy and lucky and another's that they are good at sticking to their diet and thus are not tempted to overindulgence on cotton candy.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But if it can mean one thing at one moment for one character and something completely different for another, then the rules no longer have any connection to the lore. And when you have to decide what checks to call or how houserule an unexpected situation you no longer have the tools to do so. You can no longer think 'oh it would make sense that this test would be easier for agile characters, let's use dexterity check' because dexterity no lenger means being agile. One character's high dexterity means that they're really clumsy and lucky and another's that they are good at sticking to their diet and thus are not tempted to overindulgence on cotton candy.

So is this an argument that this is making things more difficult for the DM and/or player? Because...yeah, it probably is. So? Lots of player choices make things more difficult for the DM.

Or is it an argument about potential cheating? Like in my previous example about the Kensai monk, I could say, "No, my wooden sword can fit through the windy crawlspace because it's not really a staff." But that would be using my alternative fluff to bend the rules, so that's not a permissible interpretation. It would be up to me to come up with a story that fits the rules.

And maybe that's the difference between the two camps here: one thinks that the rules determine the narration, and the other thinks that part of the fun is coming up with narration that complies with the rules.