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

[Fauchard1520]

One of my favorite parts of character creation is coming up with justifications for unusually high or low ability scores. Maybe high Dexterity just means you're Mr. Magoo lucky, stumbling your way out of a fireball’s blast radius rather than dodging it like every other Legolas out there. Maybe that low Con means you've got that Doc Holliday chronic cough. Or that your character is old and infirm. Or that you’re overweight, or unusually thin, or cursed by dark magic, or any of a thousand other options. Possibilities abound.

So my question to the board: Have you ever encountered an especially unconventional interpretation of an ability score? What was it?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

 

[iserith]

Int-5 Sherlock Holmes.

 

[TwoSix]

D&D 5E - Geniuses with 5 Int

Obviously inspired by that other thread, the goal of this thread is to describe characters who are geniuses, but for whatever reason they often fail at tasks that, in game terms, require a dice roll with an Int modifier. How might you roleplay it? My offerings: Milton von Schlumberg the...

www.enworld.org

 

[Baron Opal II]

I always thought that Kragar from the Vlad Taltos novels had an especially low Charisma. You just didn't notice the guy until he said something, even when standing in the same room. He just blended into the crowd.

 

[Umbran]

Int-5 Sherlock Holmes.

In 5e, how does he get a bonus to Investigation high enough to trounce Int-18 characters in the skill?

 

[CleverNickName]

In 5e, how does he get a bonus to Investigation high enough to trounce Int-18 characters in the skill?

He has the Reliable Talent ability and the Lucky feat?

 

[iserith]

In 5e, how does he get a bonus to Investigation high enough to trounce Int-18 characters in the skill?

Is that the character's goal?

 

[Umbran]

He has the Reliable Talent ability and the Lucky feat?

Reliable Talent gives you an average die roll. If you have an Int penalty, your overall result will not be high.

Lucky may be helpful, but I'm looking right now at my 18-Int artificer with a passive Investigation of 22 (7th level, Int 18, proficient, and Observant Feat), and I don't think being Lucky is going to cut it.

 

[CleverNickName]

Reliable Talent gives you an average die roll. If you have an Int penalty, your overall result will not be high.

Lucky may be helpful, but I'm looking right now at my 18-Int artificer with a passive Investigation of 22 (7th level, Int 18, proficient, and Observant Feat), and I don't think being Lucky is going to cut it.

I thought it let you treat any skill roll less than 10 as a 10, if you are proficient? The theory being that an artificer might roll a 1 or a 2, but the Sherlock Rogue would never roll less than 10...

But I agree about Lucky; it isn't as reliable as my players want it to be. Observant might be a better choice, come to think of it. (But why not both?)

 

[Umbran]

Is that the character's goal?

Oh, do give us a break. You were the one who invoked Holmes. That sets an expectation of performance.

Now, back up how this happens. How is it that this Int 5 character (-3 ability modifier to Investigation skill) is far superior in Investigation to Watson, Lestrade, and indeed the entire London Police force (which, as a large law-enforcement, should be expected to have several high-Int officers proficient in the skill among them). How is the iconic mastermind Moriarty under any threat of Holmes finding out what's going on.

Why is it that people are engaging Holmes, and not Mrs. Hudson?