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

[Maxperson]

Why does pg 14 go to lengths to use "might", "usually" , and "probably" when describing the characteristics of high or low ability scores? Why does pg 14 not say "always", "has to be", or "must be played as" instead?

Because there are various ways to describe strong as strong and weak as weak. Same with the rest of the stats.

Let me ask you this. Why would page 14 go through the lengths that it does, and describe a multitude of ways to describe stats, yet not once desribe high as low or low as high if those were possibilities?

You'd think that they would have given at least ONE example, but they don't.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because there are various ways to describe strong as strong and weak as weak. Same with the rest of the stats.

Let me ask you this. Why would page 14 go through the lengths that it does, and describe a multitude of ways to describe stats, yet not once desribe high as low or low as high if those were possibilities?

You'd think that they would have given at least ONE example, but they don't.

It doesn't describe high as medium or low as medium either. Where do you draw the line? Can a high Strength character appear normal (instead of burly or athletic or the like)? Like, say, Spiderman from the most recent movies? Or maybe appear normal to weak like Gon from Hunter X Hunter?

 

[Bawylie]

It doesn't describe high as medium or low as medium either. Where do you draw the line? Can a high Strength character appear normal? Like, say, Spiderman from the most recent movies?

I draw the line at “you’re pretending to be an elf wrong.”

Ability scores aren’t prescriptions on how you must portray your character. Because they aren’t a mandate on portrayal, a variety of portrayals are valid. That variety is down to personal (or table) tastes. And taste isn’t up for any reasonable debate.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm old enough and experienced enough to have SEEN this approach used for power-gaming, mate.

It's not theoretical.

I've seen it abused. I've OOC knowledge particularly wildly abused by certain players, especially when I was younger. But I've also seen "My stats aren't my stats" abused - by an extreme power-game/munchkin. I know that's not the intention behind it in this case, but I've seen it happen.

Well, here's my thing...how do you abuse it? The only way to "abuse" it is to assume that having an 8 Int or an 8 Wis or an 8 Cha (any lower means you're rolling, which means balance didn't matter anyway) means the character shouldn't come up with a plan, or shouldn't control themselves, or shouldn't try to talk to people, and the inability to do so is part of the overall balance of the game. And the only way to abuse that is if the DM chooses to let your concept and characterization OVERRIDE mechanical checks that are the real balance point.

And really, that whole issue arises from the fact that D&D has traditionally favored DM-player negotiation over mechanical checks for most non-combat resolution. People started dumping CHA because it didn't have a non-mechanical effect (at least in AD&D times), but rather than simply use more Charisma checks, people started gating character concepts by ability score instead.

 

[TwoSix]

It doesn't describe high as medium or low as medium either. Where do you draw the line? Can a high Strength character appear normal (instead of burly or athletic or the like)? Like, say, Spiderman from the most recent movies? Or maybe appear normal to weak like Gon from Hunter X Hunter?

Honestly, characters that are conceptually weak-to-moderate in a stat during RP but are actually high are even easier to justify.

 

[iserith]

Your inability to answer a very simple and direct question absolutely reads as evasiveness, so you may want to be aware that argument-wise, you look like a politician squirming to avoid directly answering a question in an interview. I'm sure that's not how it looks to you but hopefully it's helpful to understand how it may appear from another perspective.

So we have to go with inference, and thus we must see the answer as "Yes". I guess that's fine, but I'm super-skeptical that's how it actually works out at your table.

It works like any other D&D game. You say what you want to do and the DM adjudicates. Sometimes there's a roll. Sometimes there's not. If I think Colonel Mustard killed the victim based on what we've found so far, however, I can say my character does too regardless of my Int score and there's no ability check that can do anything about that. I, and therefore my character, might be wrong though. That's my risk to take.

It's totally fair to call your interpretation bizarre or legalistic though, I'd suggest, and I don't believe for a second it's intended. It could be shattered in a heartbeat by a new 5.5 PHB even slightly differently describing what stats are. I guess it very much fits the title of the thread, so there's that!

I would say it's only bizarre if one is carrying certain presuppositions which probably came from other games. I try not to do that as a rule. If the game doesn't say a player has to portray the character a certain way, then they don't. If it does, then they do. I don't think there's a viable case to be made from the D&D 5e rules that this is required. One could probably make the case using prior editions though.

I think it's fair to complain to the DM if one player insists on using OOC knowledge and ignoring their stats if the rest of the players, by unspoken agreement and long tradition (like, 40 years of tradition) are not using OOC knowledge and treating their stats as meaning something. It's certainly fine for a DM to tell a player to get wrecked for trying to use OOC knowledge (which would include some of the proposed approaches to stats).

Unspoken agreements are prone to misunderstandings. I would say it's best to get table rules on the table prior to play.

 

[iserith]

Well, here's my thing...how do you abuse it? The only way to "abuse" it is to assume that having an 8 Int or an 8 Wis or an 8 Cha (any lower means you're rolling, which means balance didn't matter anyway) means the character shouldn't come up with a plan, or shouldn't control themselves, or shouldn't try to talk to people, and the inability to do so is part of the overall balance of the game. And the only way to abuse that is if the DM chooses to let your concept and characterization OVERRIDE mechanical checks that are the real balance point.

And really, that whole issue arises from the fact that D&D has traditionally favored DM-player negotiation over mechanical checks for most non-combat resolution. People started dumping CHA because it didn't have a non-mechanical effect (at least in AD&D times), but rather than simply use more Charisma checks, people started gating character concepts by ability score instead.

Exactly right in my view. Some look at this through the lens of other games instead of this game. In the doing, any player who does not comply with something like "Int 5 = baboon" is seen to be unfairly getting away with something, when really that's just not the case. They'll have to roll when it's appropriate to roll and the dice will decide how it turns out. On average they'll do worse than someone with a higher ability score.

The smart play at that point, of course, is to avoid rolling whenever you can and to stack the deck in your favor when you might have to (working together, Inspiration, bardic inspiration, portent, guidance, etc.). But this is smart play even with a high ability score because the d20 is really swingy so what's the meaningful difference at the table? None, I say. Let people pretend to be Int-5 Sherlock how they want to and you portray Int-5 Sherlock how you want. If you somehow can't bring yourself to do that, there's always table rules, I suppose. (Here I'm using the universal "you.")

 

[Yardiff]

And take the first paragraph in that section:


So, in other words, they also might think and behave exactly the same. That's freakin' RAW, baby.

Thats AN interpretation of RAW, but Max's interpretation of the RAW is just as valid. That 'might' can easily be read/interpreted both ways.

 

[Cadence]

Honestly, characters that are conceptually weak-to-moderate in a stat during RP but are actually high are even easier to justify.

A 40 pound halfling with just strength 10 gets to carry 150 pounds with no penalty (!?!?!). It feels like the description ship has sailed a bit in 5e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

2. The players describe what they want to do.
The actual actions, thoughts, and words of a PC are the domain of the player. The consequences of those actions, thought, and words are the domain of the DM. You are possibly conflating the two.

The players describe what they want to do. It does not say that the players describe what they actually do. The rules say that the DM narrates the result of their actions. The rules do not say that the player narrates the result of anything. And it wouldn't. Ever. Because that is explicitly the role of the DM and not the player.

This cannot possibly be explained any more clearly. You're just being disingenuous. There's no point in trying to hold a rational discussion with you.