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

[Ovinomancer]

It is funny in that it's a reversal of expectations, but ultimately it wouldn't necessarily be ineffective in actual play. On average over time, a character with a higher Intelligence will obviously do better on Intelligence (Investigation) checks, but that's pretty much irrelevant at the table. I only need to succeed on occasional Intelligence (Investigation) checks, which I'm going to avoid like any other ability check if I can, and if I can't, I'm going to have other PCs working together with me (Watson, perhaps?) or I might spend my Inspiration. If the DM is running the investigation scenario in what I would view as ideal, a failed check is not a dead end but progress combined with a setback which means that my character figures out the thing, but there's a cost or complication which only makes things more interesting anyway.

Not disagreeing with any of this in theory, but, again, the results in play may be disappointing in practice. I don't think that you can successfully play a Sherlock character while avoiding situations where INT checks crop up or mitigating a -5 to the point that it's largely irrelevant when they do and still, you know, look like Sherlock Holmes. I'll grant it's theoretically possible and could be very successful, I just don't think it's very likely. Especially since, if I have a player that's expressed an interest in playing a great detective I'm much more likely to include content for that, increasing the chances of necessary checks. I think this is a difference in our general approaches because I don't think you even consider what characters would be at your table in your prep, so having a Sherlock Holmes could be very successfully done merely because that adventure doesn't offer lots of uncertain challenges to the Sherlock character. I don't think this should be relied on in a general discussion of how you might play a Sherlockian PC with a -5 INT.

Again, this isn't a disagreement in thinking so much as a disagreement in how that would actually look at the table. I think it would be disappointing for the player and farcical in practice for quite a number of tables.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I run a lot of one-shots with strangers and even with my regular johns we mix it up with campaigns and one-shots quite a bit. Meme characters are pretty common and I haven't seen one yet that was so terrible that it couldn't contribute meaningfully or wasn't fun to see in play. We've several times played short-run campaigns that rolled 3d6 in order which produced some awful stats, characters that rightfully should have died before their first day of adventuring. They still did fine.

I think there's a difference between "contributes meaningfully in play" and "fun" and "achieves the desired meme." I see daylight here. Again, I think it could be a great deal of fun to have a INT -5 Sherlock meme character in play, if I was running a more farcical game than is my usual wont. Not denying, or even arguing against, the exercise, just pointing out that in a more serious game it runs the strong risk of unwanted farce. I think the INT -5 Sherlock is highly table dependent.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

he could practically ignore Int checks altogether

Nope. All the stuff he knows about animals, poisons, behaviour and so on is knowledge which in 5E would come from INT-based skills, and he'd have to make checks to know that stuff, and constantly would fail the checks. Thus he'd either being coming up blanks about things he needed to know, or even giving out wrong/misleading information.

All that people have succeeded in doing in this thread is proving that Sherlock Holmes isn't a case of "High INT, low WIS" as people often suggest, but rather a case of "High INT, above-average WIS, and dump-stat CHA".

 

[TwoSix]

Agreeing with all of that, but you're going to be doing a lot of work trying to recast everything Sherlock does in this light. I question if it's worthwhile to do so, given you will have to continually convince your GM just so you can circumvent a more straightforward approach. I dunno, "because you can" has never really resonated with me as a reason to do this much work.

I'd probably want to work with the DM to see if they're on board with allowing for more Wisdom(Investigation) checks, or simply reframe looking for clues (especially on people) as an Insight check.

Plus, I considering trying to do things in game out of pure contrariness to be a tremendous amount of fun. "Because I can" is a powerful motivator!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nope. All the stuff he knows about animals, poisons, behaviour and so on is knowledge which in 5E would come from INT-based skills, and he'd have to make checks to know that stuff, and constantly would fail the checks.

All that people have succeeded in doing in this thread is proving that Sherlock Holmes isn't a case of "High INT, low WIS" as people often suggest, but rather a case of "High INT, above-average WIS, and dump-stat CHA".

Not in the approach @iserith uses. The player could just state what the player knows as PC knowledge without a check. There's no "roll a check to see what your PC knows" in this approach (note: I use this approach as well). It would be using that knowledge that might be tricky, if the GM determines the application is uncertain or outright incorrect. The INT -5 Sherlock could spout knowledge all day long, if the player decides to and provides it, but it might be wrong.

There's already enough threads about this, so it would probably be best to not get into it here, but instead just acknowledge that this isn't a limitation enforced by the rules but by rulings, and differences in opinion are okay. It doesn't put a nail in the argument generally, though, as nothing in the rules as written precludes either approach. It's the table's preference.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd probably want to work with the DM to see if they're on board with allowing for more Wisdom(Investigation) checks, or simply reframe looking for clues (especially on people) as an Insight check.

Plus, I considering trying to do things in game out of pure contrariness to be a tremendous amount of fun. "Because I can" is a powerful motivator!

I'm more than willing to concede that people have different levels of tolerance for being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I'm not terribly adverse, but I am too lazy to be bothered with this level of effort just for the sake of being contrary. My current level of argument in this thread is roughly my threshold level of effort for that goal.

 

[iserith]

Not disagreeing with any of this in theory, but, again, the results in play may be disappointing in practice. I don't think that you can successfully play a Sherlock character while avoiding situations where INT checks crop up or mitigating a -5 to the point that it's largely irrelevant when they do and still, you know, look like Sherlock Holmes. I'll grant it's theoretically possible and could be very successful, I just don't think it's very likely. Especially since, if I have a player that's expressed an interest in playing a great detective I'm much more likely to include content for that, increasing the chances of necessary checks. I think this is a difference in our general approaches because I don't think you even consider what characters would be at your table in your prep, so having a Sherlock Holmes could be very successfully done merely because that adventure doesn't offer lots of uncertain challenges to the Sherlock character. I don't think this should be relied on in a general discussion of how you might play a Sherlockian PC with a -5 INT.

Again, this isn't a disagreement in thinking so much as a disagreement in how that would actually look at the table. I think it would be disappointing for the player and farcical in practice for quite a number of tables.

It only really becomes a problem though if the DC is frequently higher than 19 (and why is that?) and even that is something that can be overcome with, for example, bardic inspiration or other resources. Or if the DM is not employing progress combined with a setback on failed checks (and why is that?). As far as being farcical, this would require in my view the character to fail a lot and I honestly don't think that's a big problem. The character will fail a bit more than someone with higher Intelligence, but again, that's only if I have to make a check at all. A character with a higher Intelligence will fail sometimes too and we wouldn't think that is farcical, right?

Often I think the objection to this is mostly rooted in a firmly held belief that a character with a particular ability score needs to act in a certain way or that the player is getting away with something. Not saying that's you, but I'm sure some people are seething at the thought of it.

 

[iserith]

I'd probably want to work with the DM to see if they're on board with allowing for more Wisdom(Investigation) checks, or simply reframe looking for clues (especially on people) as an Insight check.

Plus, I considering trying to do things in game out of pure contrariness to be a tremendous amount of fun. "Because I can" is a powerful motivator!

If the clues are hidden objects, it's likely a Wisdom (Perception) check anyway.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm more than willing to concede that people have different levels of tolerance for being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I'm not terribly adverse, but I am too lazy to be bothered with this level of effort just for the sake of being contrary. My current level of argument in this thread is roughly my threshold level of effort for that goal.

Totally fair. I just can't help myself from playing characters as off-trope as possible. Druids who don't care about nature, polite and chivalrous barbarians, bards who don't play music, etc. Playing a low-Int Sherlock type appeals to me in the same way.

 

[iserith]

Totally fair. I just can't help myself from playing characters as off-trope as possible. Druids who don't care about nature, polite and chivalrous barbarians, bards who don't play music, etc. Playing a low-Int Sherlock type appeals to me in the same way.

For sure. Play long enough and you'll want to mix it up a bit in my experience just to see if it can be done.