D&D General What Is D&D Generally Bad At That You Wish It Was Better At?

[Lanefan]

So what about the reverse? How many Int 20 Wizard players are super-geniuses? When they do stupid things, should we police their roleplay by saying "you're too smart to do that"?

I've both seen and done this now and then, particularly if the character also has high Wisdom.

 

[Lanefan]

It wasn't an example meant to reflect real characters. It was meant to show that the argument presented creates a clear logical contradiction, that extremely weak mental stats provide absolutely no inhibition whatsoever, while identical weak physical stats cause crippling problems the character cannot escape from.

I agree that few players would ever want such a thing. But the net result is that, to use a slightly more realistic character, someone with straight 7s in Int/Wis/Cha can be just as judicious and perceptive as a character with 20 Wis, just as sharp and incisive as a character with 20 Int, and just as compelling and convincing as a character with 20 Charisma, just so long as the player is able to do those things....while physical stats get no such leeway.

Agreed, which means it's on either the player to self-police or the rest of the table (not necessarily just the DM) to do that policing. IME over the years most players have been pretty good at self-policing and those that haven't been have - after some arguing - more or less become so.

 

[Lanefan]

I've always seen D&D as a framework upon which to build my homebrew. The challenge is always finding the version of that framework that works best with your preferences and those of your players.

And, having done that, then massage and tweak the whole thing into something vaguely long-term playable...

 

[GobHag]

I've both seen and done this now and then, particularly if the character also has high Wisdom.

Yes and I think that's bad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As illogical as it may seem, nothing I've said invalidates my point: good games allow rules modification, bad games don't.

...

So you openly admit that your argument makes no sense and contradicts itself.

But then you assert it is true anyway.

I just...what am I supposed to do? That's literally saying, "I know my argument is wrong, but it's actually right anyway."

 

[Theory of Games]

...

So you openly admit that your argument makes no sense and contradicts itself.

But then you assert it is true anyway.

I just...what am I supposed to do? That's literally saying, "I know my argument is wrong, but it's actually right anyway."

I'm just a foolish old man, ER. Don't mind me.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes and I think that's bad.

Tough.

I think it's better than allowing players to end-run around the drawbacks inherent to their characters' stats

 

[pemerton]

one of my absolute favorite questions as a DM:

"Are you sure you want to do that?"

It has other variations ("Did you actually do/say that?" for when they've joked around and you want to be sure whether it was a joke or not; "Is that what you want to do?" if you aren't sure whether the player is actually enthused; etc.), but it is almost always THE most powerful tool I have for shaping player behavior.

I'm not sure why it is the GM's job to shape player behaviour.

When I'm GMing, it's almost always for people I've known, and RPGed with, for a long time. So of course we talk and joke and so on. But I don't try and caution them. I do taunt them, though - eg for being cowards, or (in Torchbearer) for missing a chance to grab some loot, or similar. And if they do something bold or unexpected I'll express my admiration.

But it's commentary/response, not an attempt to shape behaviour.

 

[James Gasik]

What drawbacks?* A low Int gives you a lower bonus on Int checks and saves. It affects some save DC's and how many spells a Wizard can prepare. Show me in the rules where anything else is said about how Int is supposed to impact play?

*Obviously, this is from a 5e perspective, but I don't recall older editions giving us any real metric for Intelligence, beyond AD&D monster books, which had descriptive ratings like high, genius, super genius, but even then, I've never seen a rule that says "an 11 Int character cannot perform the following actions".

This is why I think the ability should just be scrapped- it's mechanical weight is scant, but people seem willing to give it narrative weight based on a whim- people can't tell me what sort of plan is too complex for a character of Int 12 by any metric in the rules. It's something completely made up!

NOTE: I'm not saying that Int 9 characters should be played like geniuses. That's not what I'm advocating for. My position is simple- in absentia of any actual statements made by the rulebooks, mental ability scores become completely arbitrary straitjackets on roleplay. If I'm running a game as a DM, I know I don't have a 17 Intelligence- so why should I have the authority to tell the PC whose player has a 17 Intelligence what they can or cannot do?

 

[GobHag]

Tough.

I think it's better than allowing players to end-run around the drawbacks inherent to their characters' stats

If a wizard has low INT, then their DC is still bad, and depending on edition might not have extra skills/languages, and in 5e specifically their INT save would suck.