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

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree that it's easier just to handwave the situation I was describing, but I'd actually prefer to adhere strictly to the rules. I might say something like, "I'm worried about a loose stone collapsing on my companions, so I use my bokken as shoring and leave it behind." Or whatever.

And the reason I think it's important is so that there's a clear boundary. In the 5-Int Genius thread, Max kept throwing these scenarios at me, along the lines of "Well what if you're in a Zone of Truth and..." He was trying to find a way in which the alternative interpretation would cause actual rules to get broken, in a way that would give unfair advantage.

Or another example is the proficiency: in my fluff the only reason I'm not using a real longsword is that my sensei hasn't given me permission. If we take that fluff at face value, there's no reason I couldn't defy my sensei and pick up the real thing, even though that would break the metagame rules. But since I have zero intention of trying it, the rule remains inviolate.

I think that if you're going to play around with re-fluffing, it's important to be diligent about adhering to the rules.

I'm sure one could come up with a situation that would break the refluffing. For example there is a sword lying around and someone uses a mind control spell to attack with it or something. Or there could be some bizarre situation where the fate of thousands of people depended on your character defeating a bad guy alone, the bad guy was immune to normal damage and there was a magic sword that could hurt them, thus it would be pretty jarring if your character didn't break their wow. But of course neither of those are likely to arise unless the GM intentionally tries to cause your refluffing to to become a problem, so in practice non-issues.

But here is how I would approach this differently. If the fiction is that your character knows how to use the sword but just doesn't, and I as a GM approved that, then that's how it is, and if some bizarre situation arose where your character absolutely has to use the sword, then they will have the proficiency. And same with any refluffing. I treat them as houserules. Once the fluff is changed, then that is the fluff that informs the rules from now on, and in some rare situations that may lead to different rule-results than the original fluff would have.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean here, but I don't see it as disassociation of the rules and the fiction at all. It's just swapping in a different fiction that is still tightly associated to the rules. E.g. my wooden sword. It still follows all the same rules in the same way, it just has different fluff.

The bokken is a complete non-issue. Whether the wooden stick is four or six feet long doesn't matter for its combat stats because there is no sufficient granularity to differentiate between them in that context. But in fiction the bokken has certain length, and in situation where such matters, that's the length used (like whether it fits somewhere, can be used to reach something etc.)

But I want the rules to describe thing in the fiction in (somewhat) consistent manner and in any improvisation situation further ad-hoc rules flow from the fiction.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You seem to be caught up with a very strict definition of "The DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions"

And you seem to be very loose in your definition, to an extent not remotely intended by the game design. I would go as far as to say that your approach appears disingenuous, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It does not interrupt the play cycle to ask a player to describe what the tremendous success or failure of their PC's action looked like. You as DM still have the power to then describe how the success or failure affected other creatures, objects, and/or the environment, which brings us back to step 1 in the play loop.

Of course, the DM always has the power to change any rules of the game, as long as their players are okay with it. But your own house rules have no bearing on the rules actually under discussion. If you choose to roll 2d10 rather than d20, then that's entirely your prerogative, but it's also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No thank you on telling the player how their PC thinks, acts, or talks.

I get where you're coming from, and I agree with the basic idea, but you're still shirking your duty by not describing the results of their intended action. A player can describe any course of action that they intend, but that does not mean they have any power whatsoever in saying how that plays out. The character doesn't choose to slip on a banana peel as compared to tripping over a rock, and putting that choice in the hands of the player is a direct violation of the basic process of play. The rules are extremely clear on this point.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And you seem to be very loose in your definition, to an extent not remotely intended by the game design. I would go as far as to say that your approach appears disingenuous, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Disagree.

Of course, the DM always has the power to change any rules of the game, as long as their players are okay with it. But your own house rules have no bearing on the rules actually under discussion. If you choose to roll 2d10 rather than d20, then that's entirely your prerogative, but it's also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And I'm saying that fluff, while mostly in the hand's of the DM, is not the sole domain of the DM. Please cite the rule that says it is.

I get where you're coming from, and I agree with the basic idea, but you're still shirking your duty by not describing the results of their intended action. A player can describe any course of action that they intend, but that does not mean they have any power whatsoever in saying how that plays out. The character doesn't choose to slip on a banana peel as compared to tripping over a rock, and putting that choice in the hands of the player is a direct violation of the basic process of play. The rules are extremely clear on this point.

Huh? No DM is letting the player override the mechanical result adjudicated by said DM. And no trusted player is making up that there is a banana peel in the scenario for lolz if it is not appropriate to the scene (although some might play that way and if they're having fun so be it).

Duty not shirked. Result of action narrated: trip.

I'm talking about asking the player, after they've failed the roll, why their PC tripped on the rock: "my character, whose flaw is that she is distracted by shiny things, caught a sparkling glint off some mica on the wall and missed the very real trip hazard right in front of her nose." I trust my players to sometimes add appropriate flavor to what their character is doing in a success or fail state. As DM I'm either going to ask the player to describe why they tripped OR I'm simply going to say that failing the roll resulted in a trip. And we move on the the start of the play cycle either way. As DM, I'm NOT going to embellish the result any more than that by narrating what the character was otherwise doing or thinking that caused the fall: "You look up at the ceiling because you fear more piercers are in the area and trip on the rock." That is not shirking duty to avoid the embellishment, that's sticking to the DM's role.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And I'm saying that fluff, while mostly in the hand's of the DM, is not the sole domain of the DM. Please cite the rule that says it is.
[...]
I'm talking about asking the player, after they've failed the roll, why their PC tripped on the rock: "my character, whose flaw is that she is distracted by shiny things, caught a sparkling glint off some mica on the wall and missed the very real trip hazard right in front of her nose."

1. The DM describes the environment.
That's the rule. What you have, here, is the player describing the environment; which is a direct violation of that rule. More importantly, though, this is a violation of Step 3. (See below)

2. The players describe what they want to do.
Note the verb: want. The player can want to do anything. What actually happens is beyond their power of declaration. Often, what they want will inform what actually happens, but the one who narrates the results is always the DM. See also: Step 3.

Huh? No DM is letting the player override the mechanical result adjudicated by said DM.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
The DM isn't only responsible for tagging keywords within a computer program. The DM's job is to narrate the results.

The action is that they try to walk down the hallway. The result of that action (depending on other factors known to the DM, possibly involving a die roll) is that the character trips over a rock; or they slip on a banana peel; or they're distracted by something shiny; as the DM narrates. If you just say that the Prone condition is applied, and don't go into it, then that's only halfway to describing a result. It isn't really sufficient until you narrate it. The DM tells the player what happens, because that is their role in the game.

If you choose to forsake your role in narrating the results, then you have abandoned the basic rules of play. You've left the scope of the game, and you're wandering around in the weeds of house rules. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but your experiences out there are no longer applicable to the game in general.

 

[Todd Roybark]

EDIT - I've seen an interesting double-standard re: stats since I was a teenager, note. People want to be able to dump mental stats without the consequences of dumping them

That is an excellent point. The people I play with like role playing, so taking a 5 in a statistic would be considered a challenge for the player to incorporate the stat into an effective character, not something to be min/maxed.

DMs should absolutely demand that characters that have unusual stats, role play their stats.
That said, as someone who in 1985 played a Half-orc Fighter with 7 INT (less intelligent than a 1e carnivorous ape), and a 3 Wisdom, role playing Lenny from the novella Of Mice and Men is fun, once.

If in a rolled stats game, the DM is going to dictate that a 5 in stat must be played a particular way, then the player should be allowed a re-roll of stats.

At this point in my life, I have absolutely no desire to potentially spend years of real life time
inhabiting a role, that I have played a billion times before.
This is an extreme example, but if a DM told me I had to play a serial killer, due to a 5 WIS score, I would just pass on the game entirely.

I don't think this is supportable, and you offer no evidence or examples to support it.

I don't feel the need to justify any example. Intelligence is a D&D artifact..the D&D parameters of Intelligence don't apply to the real world. Around 50 years ago when D&D was being created, the concept of "G"...general intelligence, had not really changed from 1700's.
That is not true today.
You might as well be asking me to justify why real world medicine doesn't match D&D mechanics....or what the weight of the color yellow is.

In game terms, the Intelligence stat influences knowledge checks and formal inquiry.

A Lizardperson character with the Outlander background and a 5 INT shouldnt have to be a gormless drooler. Instead, they can simple have a world view that is so alien, that what the lizardperson knows, their whole system of knowledge, is utter nonsense to those who do not share the same world view.

The -3 to Intelligence ability checks supports this, mechanically, and reinforces the role play choices of the player.

The actual Sherlock Holmes in say Eberron, is literally crazy. Scientific Criminal Investigation is just not how Eberron works...you can't track footprints in a world replete with Pass without Trace, bird droppings and minerals don't make gunpowder. Guns are bound elemental magic items.

If a player approaches you as the DM and asks to play crazy Sherlock in Sharn, are you going to say: "No, 5 INT means you must play Ruperick the monkey boy"?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Failing sometimes is probably not okay for a Holmes type PC which would only fail very rarely. To accurately model Holmes you'd need to have +6 proficiency, expertise with Investigation, a 20 Int and Reliable Talent. That would give him a floor investigation of 27 which would be Holmes like.

 

[Maxperson]

You have some work to do to show that the gorilla will "routinely" outsmart the PC in a way that affects play meaningfully, particularly as it's unlikely (but not impossible) that a gorilla will feature quite often in this character's adventures. It's just not a worthwhile consideration and doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It's instead to do with your apparent preference as to how a player should portray a particular ability score. You're welcome to your preferences and your table rules, of course. I just don't share them.

Intelligence in 5e is quite literally the ability to recall things accurately and the ability to reason. A 5 Int is a very low ability to recall things accurately and a very low ability to reason. If you are roleplaying your PC as the opposite to what the game says your Int represents, then in my opinion you are roleplaying very poorly, especially if you are succeeding to the level of Holmes by roleplaying that way.

It would the same as if the game said your PC was color blind, but you kept roleplaying successfully seeing in color.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t think they’re breaking the rule. It’s more like malicious compliance. Dexterity, in this instance, is unchanged functionally, but merely appears lucky. Like a jar jar binks bumbling around but exactly the right way and scoring kills off it.

It’s goofing. And goofing isn’t breaking the rules. The game engine remains intact. How it looks in-universe is an area open to interpretation. A dexterous Jackie Chan is radically different than a dexterous Fred Astaire. Since that presentation is open to interpretation, goofing is fair game too.

Jar Jar didn't bumble a high dex at any point. He bumbled successes. When he needed to aim at things, he missed badly because he has a low dex. The Lucky feat far more accurately models his bumbling successes.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no "Luck" statistic. Describing Mr. Magoo as "lucky" is a colloquialism, that explains away Mr. Magoo's lack of Intention when he performs his dexterous feats.

Sure there is.

"Lucky. When you roll a 1 on an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll."

And...

"Lucky
You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment.

You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker’s roll or yours. If more than one creature spends a luck point to influence the outcome o f a roll, the points cancel each other out; no additional dice are rolled. You regain your expended luck points when you finish a long rest."

These far more accurately model a Mr. Magoo type character. He isn't walking on that girder while blind due to a high dex. He's just getting very lucky.

 

[Maxperson]

And here is a similar example of what I am talking about. You responded to elf crusher, but you didn't answer the important part of the question. The part that hurts your argument you ignored. Elfcrusher said:

"But if you're calling the description of Dexterity a "rule" then there needs to be some mechanism for applying the rule at the table. What exactly is the mechanical consequence of somebody narrating their characters actions as a clumsy but lucky Mr. Magoo character? "

You never addressed the important part, the mechanism for applying the "rule" or the mechanical consequence for not doing so. If a description is a rule, their needs to be a mechanical consequence. It similar to saying orcs are green. not the the grey color depicted in the MM. It has no mechanical consequence. Gray orcs a not a game rule, it is simply a game description.

You responded, and clearly you were happy with that response, but you didn't really answer the question.

The DM is the mechanism.

Player: "My 18 Dex PC is just bumbling around getting lucky with dex rolls."

DM: "That's not how Dex works in 5e. Dex in 5e is explicitly agility, reflexes and balance. If you have a high dex, you have high agility, reflexes and balance. What you are describing is the Lucky feat working for a low dex individual."

And done. The mechanism for applying Dex worked just fine. Rules don't need mechanics in order to be rules.